Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) BAIJ Nath Daroga Rai and Harihar were fixed rate tenants of holding No. 139 measuring 9.56 acres. On 17th September, 1951, Smt. Tape-sara and Smt. Rangbasi, two widows of this family executed a deed of sale of.62 acres of this holding in favour of respondents Nos, 18, 19 and 20. Some time before that in 1950 Baij Nath had died and his widow Smt. Fatengana laid claim to a half share in the holding as the heir of Baij Nath. This led to some disputes whereupon Harihar Rai and Daroga Rai filed a suit for a declara tion under Section 59 of U. P. Tenancy Act claiming to be the sole tenants of the land. This suit ended in a compromise decree dated 30th April, 1952. Under it Smt.. Fatengana was recognised to be the holder of a half share in the holding while Daroga Rai and Harihar Rai were declared to be the owners of the balance half. The compro mise further recognised the transfers execut ed by Smt. Fatengana in relation to 1.30 acres of the holding as well as the transfer executed by Daroga Rai and Harihar Rai in relation to 5.255 acres of the holding.
(2.) ON 1st December, 1952, Smt. Fateneana filed another suit for declaration under Section 59 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. This suit also ended in a compromise dated 30th August, 1954. Under this compromise decree Smt. Fatengana was given 4.12 acres of this holding in lieu of maintenance allowance. The balance was agreed to be the bhumidhari of Daroga Rai and Harihar Rai. In the basic year the name of Daroga Rai alone appeared as the bhumidhar of the holding. Smt. Fatengana filed an objection claiming a half share in the holding. The Deputy Director ultimately held that the compromise of 1952 decided the title of the parties with the result that Smt. Fatengana would have a half share in the holding. He also held that the sales executed by both the parties will be adjusted against their shares. Aggrieved, Daroga Rai filed a writ petition in this Court which failed. Hence the present appeal.
(3.) FOR the appellants it was urged that the compromise decree dated 30th August, 1954, was binding between the par ties and so the lady had only a right to pos session of the specific plots in lieu of her maintenance allowance. In Shital Prasad v. Board of Revenue, 1962 All LJ 90 a Divi sion Bench of this Court held that a suit for declaration of tenancy rights is not compe tent under the Tenancy Act after the en forcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The suit filed by Smt. Fatengana on 1st December, 1952, was, therefore, incompetent. The revenue courts are courts of special jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction to entertain suits of any kind except those with regard to which jurisdic tion has been expressly conferred by statute on them. If they had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature after the date of vesting, a decree passed by them would be a nullity. The compromise decree hence created no right or obligation between the parties because it was void.;