BANWARI BARHI Vs. RAM RATAN PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for cancellation of a perpetual lease of a fixed-rate holding by his father on the ground that the lease was executed by his father as manager but for no legal necessity.

(2.) The trial Court dismissed the suit on a finding that a question of tenancy right arose and as the revenue Court had decided that the defendant was tenant, the civil Court could not deal with this suit.

(3.) In appeal the lower appellate Court held that Section 273, Tenancy Act, could not apply to oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court in a case like this. No doubt the defendant was a tenant if the lease were a valid lease, and it would be a valid lease until avoided by the son. The revenue Court's decision could not prevent the plaintiff bringing a suit for avoidance of the lease. It found that the alienation was not for legal necessity and decreed the suit.