MANGAL Vs. BANSIDAS
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-2-13
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 27,1952

MANGAL Appellant
VERSUS
BANSIDAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an application for revision by the defendants, and arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction restraining the defendants from constructing a kiln for preparing bricks and lime, and a pucca house.
(2.)THE plaintiff's case is that the defendants are his tenants, and by constructing a kiln for bricks and lime, and a pucca house, the land shall be damaged and a loss would ensue to the produce also.
The defendants objected, inter alia, that the civil courts were barred from entertaining a suit of this nature.

The learned Munsif, Kotputli, came to the conclusion that the building of a pucca house on the land amounted to an improvement under sec. 4 (5) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945, and, therefore, under sec. 84 of the said Act, a tenant was not liable to ejectment on that ground. A suit for ejectment could not, therefore, be filed under sec. 133 of the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act, 1947, and on that account a suit for injunction also could not be filed. The civil court, therefore, had jurisdiction in the case. Dissatisfied with this order, the defendants have come in revision to this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. At present the only materials that I have got to consider are the allegations in the plaint. According to the plaint the defendants were the tenants of the plaintiff. They were going to construct brick and lime kilns and also a pucca house, which would be detrimental to the land in question. According to these allegations, the defendants would be liable to eject-ment under sec. 84 (1) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. It has, however, been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party that under sec. 4 (5) of the Tenancy Act, the construction of a dwelling house was an improvement and not detrimental to the land. A suit for ejectment, therefore, could not lie, and similarly, a suit for injunction could not lie. Giving my consideration to the language of sec. 4 (5) of the Tenancy Act, I find that improvement means, inter alia, a dwelling house created on the holding by the tenant for his own occupation. The plaint does not recite that the defendant was creating a dwelling house for his own occupation. The only thing that has been mentioned is that a pucca house is going to be created, which would be detrimental to the land. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot take advantage of sec. 4 (5) of the Act. On a plain reading of the allegations in the plaint, I am of opinion that under the circumstances as disclosed in the plaint, the plaintiff had a right to bring a suit for ejectment under sec. 133 of the Jaipur State-Grants Land Tenures Act, and as he has not chosen to bring a suit for ejectment, but has contended himself with bringing a suit for injunction only, the suit for injunction should also have been filed in the revenue court.

The application for revision is allowed, the order of the lower court is. set aside, and the plaint is returned for presentation to the proper court. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.