BENI MADHO SINGH Vs. PRAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 3 September 1945, Beni Madho Singh (plaintiff-applicant) instituted a suit, under Section 9, Specific Belief Act, against Prag (defendant-opposite-party) to recover possession over two plots of tenancy land on the following allegations: Over a century ago the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant had mortgaged with possession the plots in dispute to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title. Under the mortgage the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title and also the plaintiff held possession over the plots aforesaid. After the expiry of the period allowed by law for redemption of the mortgage, the plaintiff held possession over the plots as tenant on behalf of the landlord until July 1945, when he was illegally and without his consent dispossessed by the defendant.

(2.) The defence was that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, and it was exclusively triable by the revenue Court. The defendant further alleged that the plaintiff had himself put him in possession to avoid ejectment proceedings under Section 171,. U.P. Tenancy Act.

(3.) The trial Court (Munsif of Banda) came to the conclusion that Section 9, Specific Relief Act had no application to cases for which special provision was made in the Tenancy Act and that the present suit was of the nature mentioned in Section 180, Tenancy Act, consequently it was not maintainable in the civil Court, under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has come up to this Court in revision.