RAM LAGAN BHAGAT Vs. PHAKKAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff sued in the civil Court for the ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was a licensee of a certain grove under certain conditions and that the plaintiff desired to eject him because, according to the conditions of the license, the license had now terminated. Both the subordinate civil Courts held that, by reason of previous litigation between the parties, the civil Court was debarred from arriving at any adjudication of the matter presented to it by the plaintiff. In second appeal the correctness of this view is challenged.

(2.) IN the former suit the plaintiff declared the defendant to be his non-occupancy tenant and desired his ejectment under Section 58. The Assistant Collector went into the facts of the case and held that the defendant was not an occupancy tenant, but held the grove under such conditions that he could not be ejected under Section 58. His view further was that in the alternative the defendant would be a rent-free grantee of the land for the purposes of planting a grove. The suit was dismissed. IN between the revenue Court litigation and the present suit there was another suit filed by the plaintiff in the civil Court wherein proceedings under Section 202, Tenancy Act, were taken and the defendant, on being referred to the Revenue Court to prove his allegation of tenancy, failed to prove it. That litigation, however, has no effect on the present litigation. The question is whether the civil Court, after the refusal of the revenue Court to eject the defendant can enquire into the matter whether the defendant is licensee of the plaintiff or not The revenue Court held that the defendant was a grove-holder. The only question for decision, therefore, is whether, the revenue Court had jurisdiction to determine such a question or not. IN my opinion the revenue Court had. The defendant, as a grove holder, may be considered a non-occupancy tenant and liable to be ejected under Section 58, or he may be a rent-free grantee and not liable to ejectment. IN either case the determination of the matter rested with the revenue Court. It was pointed out that, if the revenue Court held the defendant to be a tenant grove- holder, the revenue Court ought to have ejected the defendant. Granting this, it may be said that the revenue Court made a mistake and the remedy of the plaintiff lay by appeal from the decree of the revenue Court. The wrong decision of the revenue Court does not give rise to the jurisdiction of a civil Court. Another view is that the defendant was rightly held to be such a grove-holder as could not be ejected under Section 58. it is not every grove-holder who could be ejected under that section. There might be questions relating to a holding such as would make the holder a rent-free grantee or one entitled to continue in possession so long as the trees stood on the land. All these questions are within the jurisdiction of the revenue Court. When the revenue Court once decided that the defendant was the plaintiff's grove holder I am of opinion that the two Subordinate Courts were correct in coming to the conclusion that they were debarred from holding that the defendant was the licensee of the plaintiff. The bars of Section 11, Civil P. C, and Section 167, Tenancy Act were rightly urged by the Subordinate Courts. My observations above dispose of the other grounds of appeal also. I dismiss this appeal with costs.