PANNA LAL Vs. GOBARDHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of price of fruits of certain trees alleged to have been taken away stealthily by the defendants- appellants. The plaintiff-respondent alleged that he was a zamindar of the village, that plot No. 212 belonged to him, that the adjoining plot No. 213 was a grove of which the defendants were the grove holders, that certain trees stood in plot No. 212 and belonged to the plaintiff and that the defendants had appropriated the fruits of the trees and so were liable to pay the price to the plaintiff.

(2.) The defence was that the trees were part of the grove standing in plot No. 213 and had been planted by the defendants and that they did not stand in plot No. 212 at all. The trial Court held that it could not be said with certainty in which plot the trees stood and that, therefore, the plaintiff had failed to prove his case. In the result it dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that prior to the institution of the present suit, there had been a proceeding for demarcation of the two plots, Nos. 212 and 213, in the revenue Court, that it was held by the revenue Court that the land over which the trees in dispute stood formed part of plot No. 212 and not of 213 and that the said decision of the revenue Court was a decision which could not be challenged by the defendants in civil Court. It further held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he planted the trees, and that, therefore, it may be taken that the defendants did plant them but since they paid nothing to the owner of the land for planting them, the trees went with the land and were the property of the plaintiff. In the result it decreed the suit. The defendants have come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) The respondent is unfortunately not represented in this Court. The decision of the revenue Court in demarcation proceedings was made under Section 41, Land Revenue Act. The defendants were grove holders. The boundaries of their grove were demarcated. A decision like this is under Section 44, Land Revenue Act, binding on all revenue Courts. The section does not say whether it is binding on the civil Courts as well. At the same time, the revenue Courts are the sole authority for determining tenancy rights including the extent of a tenant's holding. A grove holder is a tenant for such purposes. The revenue Court's finding, therefore, that the land on which the disputed trees stand does not form part of the grove, is conclusive on the point and cannot be challenged in a civil Court, vide Section 242, U.P. Tenancy Act. The result is that although under Section 44, Land Revenue Act, decisions under Section 41 of that Act are not specifically stated to be binding on the civil Court they become binding indirectly by reason of the provisions of Section 242, U.P. Tenancy Act. On this point I respectfully agree with the decision of Bennet J., in Sarbati V/s. Zaminpal reported in . It must, therefore, be held that the defendants are not the tenants of the land over which the trees in dispute stand and that the trees do not form part of the defendants grove.