- (1.) This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court reversing on appeal the decision of the lower appellate Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit.
(2.) The facts are few and simple. Daulat Ram and another filed a suit against Payare Lal and another for possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint, that they were the owners of the land and the defendants were in its cultivating possession for the last two years. The defendants were asked to discontinue the cultivation but they refused to do so. The possession of the defendants, therefore, is illegal. The suit be decreed. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants took alternative pleas : namely, (a) that they had become the owners of the land by adverse possession, and (b) that they were the tenants of the land in dispute under the plaintiffs and could not be evicted. The suit being between landlords and tenants, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was excluded. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the defendants have become owners of the land in suit by adverse possession ? 2. Whether the defendants are tenants under the plaintiffs ? 3. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit ? 4. Whether the plaintiff No. 1 is a minor ? If so, its effect ?" The trial Court found that the defendants had not perfected their title to the land by adverse possession; that the defendants were the tenants of the plaintiffs; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and directed that the plaint be returned for presentation to the Revenue Court. The fourth issue was not pressed. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court on the question of adverse possession. However, it came to the conclusion that the defendants were not the tenants of the plaintiffs and so it reversed the decision of the trial Court to the contrary. It was held that the Civil Courts had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On this matter, the lower appellate Court observed as follows :- "The plaintiffs in the instant case having admitted that the defendants were holding the land as tenants under them and the defendants themselves having repudiated the title of the plaintiffs by setting up their own title in the land, the suit was manifestly triable by the Civil Court. A close scrutiny of the entries in the revenue record consisting of Jamabandis, a Khasra Girdawari produced on both sides would also show that although originally the defendants were recorded as tenants at will paying rent in cash for the land in dispute but subsequently they had ceased to pay any rent or batai to the landlord and from 1955-56 onwards, they had throughout been recorded as tenants at will without paying any rent or batai whatever. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties if any, had thus ceased to exist since 1956-56." The result was that the plaintiff's appeal was allowed and their suit decreed. The defendants then preferred a second appeal to this Court and the learned Single Judge reversed the decision of the lower appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court. The learned Single Judge observed : "The respondents had asserted in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the appellants had been cultivating the land in dispute for the last two years but they did not want to have it cultivated from them. This implies that the status of the appellants as tenants was practically admitted. The jurisdiction of a Court is primarily determined by the pleads raised in the plaint. It is well-settled that in view of the tenancy legislation a Civil Court cannot pass a decree for dispossession of a tenant." Against this decision, the present appeal has been preferred.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Raja Durga Singh of Solan V. Tholu and others, 1963 AIR(SC) 361contends that in this case it cannot be held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was accepted. In fact, the lower appellate Court had found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant at the date when the suit was filed. This is a finding of fact and in view of that finding the learned Single Judge could not come to the conclusion that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction.;