Issue:
Whether the suit is cognizable by the Civil or the Revenue Court? Also to determine who is the tenant of property and who should be treated as a trespasser in this case?
Facts:
1. The plaintiff alleged that her husband, Jangi, separated from his brother, Deo Saran, 25 years prior to the institution of this suit.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The defendants in their written statement contended that since Jangi died as a joint member of the family, the defendants were the tenants of the holding of Jangi’s property. They also pleaded that the suit was not cognizable by the Munsif's Court.
Appellant Contention
The appellant contented that since her husband had separated from his brother 25 years before the institution of this suit, no such question of holding out her property by his nephew arises. She contended that his husbands nephew were not the tenants of her property rather they should be treated as trespassers.
Respondent Contention
The defendants in this case contented that since the deceased Jangi was a member of the joint family, they had all the right to be the tenants of his property.
Judgement
As far as the first concerned was raised that whether the case should be tried by the civil court or the revenue court, the Bench took the reference of Section 230, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926, which states that all suits which fall within the purview of Section 99, Tenancy Act could be heard and determined only by the revenue Court. Section 99, thus, contains a description of suits. If a plaintiff finds that his suit comes within the purview of Section 99, he is to go to the revenue court.
As far as the second question was concerned, which gave rise to the question of possession and tenancy, the bench said that the revenue Court can give adequate relief by decreeing possession and compensation. The answer to the second question is that if the suit substantially falls under Section 99 , the joining of a relief for an injunction would make no difference and the suit would be cognizable by the revenue Court.
Join Mr. Virmani for his 24-Hours Live Course on CPC starting from 23rd August.
Flat 66 % discount till 18th August.
Use the following link to join the class - https://lnkd.in/d-CM4uE
Study material and recordings shall be given to all the participants along with the certificates
