MT ANANTI Vs. CHHANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 267, Agra Ten. Act of 1926. The matter came up before two learned Judges of this Court. They found that they were unable to accept the view taken in the case of Nandan, Mallah V/s. Mohammad Ali [1929] A.L.J 940, and, accordingly, referred the matter to a larger Bench.

(2.) The facts relating to the case are set forth in the order of reference and may be, very briefly stated as follows. The plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this reference has arisen, in the Court of the Munsif of Haveli, Benares, on the allegation that her husband, Jangi, separated from his brother, Deo Saran, 25 years prior to the institution of this suit, that the plaintiff's husband died more than 10 years before the suit, and that for the last 10 years the plaintiff had been in possession of her husband's occupancy holding as his heir. She added that the defendants who were the descendants of Deo Saran, interfered with the crops grown by her on her own land and, eventually took possession of her holding. She sued for recovery of possession and for recovery of mesne profits. The defendants in their written statement contended that Deo Saran and the plaintiff's husband Jangi were joint, that Jangi having died as a joint member of the family, the defendants were the tenants of the holding and the plaintiff had no right. They also pleaded that the suit was not cognizable by the Munsif's Court.

(3.) The Munsif's difficulty was that if the allegations in the plaint were accepted the suit would be cognizable by the civil Court, but if the defence, as mentioned in their written statement, could be considered without an inquiry as to its truth or otherwise, the suit would be cognizable by the revenue Court, having regard to the provisions of Secs.99 and 230, Agra Ten. Act, 1926. He accordingly framed two questions and made the reference. The two questions are as follows: 1. Where a plaintiff alleging himself to be a tenant sues a defendant treating him as a trespasser, for possession and compensation regarding a holding or a part thereof, and the defendant pleads tenancy, then having regard to Secs.99 and 230 of the Act (3 of 1926), is the suit maintainable in the civil Court? 2. Where a tenant on being dispossessed from his holding or part thereof, sues a person for compensation and possession, and also asks for an injunction to restrain the defendants from doing any act prejudicial to the plaintiff's interest, what is the effect, upon the jurisdiction of joining the relief of injunction with that of possession and compensation? Is the suit cognizable by the civil or the revenue Court?