LAL SINGH Vs. SARDARA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal filed by Lal Singh is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, affirming on appeal the decision of the trial Court by which Sardara and Manga, Plaintiff-Respondents were granted a declaratory decree.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the two Respondents, who were both minor, were the occupancy tenants of the land in dispute while the Appellant was shown as occupying the land in dispute as a tenant under them. The Appellant was declared by the Revenue Assistant to be Bhumidar of the land in dispute. The Respondents thereafter filed the present suit stating that the Appellant was not entitled to be declared as Bhumidar in respect of the disputed land and that the Bhumidari Sanad had been wrongly issued in his favour. They also sought declaration that in fact they were entitled to be declared Bhumidari and to get Bhumidari certificate.

(3.) IN second appeal Mr. Bali, learned Counsel for the Defendant -Appellant, has argued that the present suit could only lie in a Revenue Court and was not maintainable in a Civil Court and the findings of the Courts below to the contrary are not correct. In this respect I find that a suit with regard to the land in dispute on same allegations was previously filed by the Respondents in the Court of Revenue Assistant on 2nd November, 1957. In that suit after service of the Appellant the Revenue Assistant passed an order on 7th an February, 1958, in the presence of the parties that the suit was not maintainable in the Revenue Court. The Respondents were accordingly directed to file a suit, if not already done, in a competent Civil Court. It would appear that the Respondents in the anticipation of that order of the Revenue Assistant filed the present suit on 14th December, 1957. As a finding has already been given between the parties in respect of the land in dispute by the Revenue Assistant that the present suit is triable not by a Revenue Court but by a Civil Court the Respondents, in my opinion, cannot be non -suited in the present suit on the ground that the suit in fact was triable by a Revenue Court. The above finding was given by the Revenue Assistant after hearing both the parties and whether right or wrong it would be binding upon the parties. It would look anomalous and would indeed be reducing judicial proceedings to a farce if a finding was given by the Revenue Court that the suit was triable by the Civil Court and subsequently when the matter came before the Civil Court a decision was given that the suit was triable by the Revenue Court.