MAHENDER MAN SINGH Vs. BADRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference to a Full Bench in the following terms: Does an appeal lie to the District Judge under Section 242(1)(d), Agra Tenancy Act (3 of 1926), against the decision of the Revenue Court in a suit for recovery of arrears of revenue brought under Section 223 of that Act, if the defendant pleads that he is not liable to pay any revenue at all?

(2.) The plaintiff brought two suits in the Court of an Assistant Collector, First Class, under Section 223, Agra Tenancy Act, claiming arrears of revenue under Rs. 200 from a number of defendants. On the decision of the Assistant Collector dismissing the suits, the plaintiff applied to the Commissioner in revision and the Commissioner forwarded the application in revision to the Board of Revenue stating his opinion that revision lay. The Board of Revenue differed and held that these were cases in which appeals lay to the District Judge under Section 242, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926, and therefore that no revision lay to the Board, in accordance with Section 252 of that Act. The plaintiff therefore filed two appeals in the Court of the District Judge of Agra, and "she District Judge of Agra has dismissed these two appeals in one judgment. The plaintiff brought two second appeals in this Court and a preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lay to the District fudge under Section 242(1)(d) and therefore that the dismissal of the suits of the plaintiff by the trial Court had become final. The question therefore of whether an appeal lay has been referred to this Full Bench. There are several decisions of learned Judges of this Court to which reference has been made. One of these is a Bench decision Pyare Lal V/s. Amna Khatun . In this case the learned Judges stated as follows on page 753, col. 2: The language of Section 242(1)(d) clearly contemplates cases in which the amount of revenue payable in respect of a land is in dispute. Questions regarding the liability of particular lands and individuals owning interest therein have been advisedly left out of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Such questions fall within the purview of certain provisions of the Land Revenue Act. If we accept the contention of the learned advocate for the plaintiff and assume an extended jurisdiction a conflict of jurisdiction may arise in view of the provisions of Section 233, U.P. Land Revenue Act. Accordingly, we hold that the language of Section 242(1)(d) should not be strained in the manner suggested and that only when the amount of revenue, as distinguished from liability in respect thereof, is in dispute, an appeal lies to the District Judge. As the amount of revenue annually payable is not in dispute in this case no appeal lay to the District Judge. We answer the reference accordingly.

(3.) The learned Judges also state: It should be noted that Clause (d), Section 242(1) quoted above, is limited to cases in which the amount of the revenue payable is in dispute. Its language is not wide enough to include cases in which the liability to pay revenue as between two individuals is the question at issue.