RAJA BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH versus JAI NARAIN

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 08-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
. E 
F 
G 
r 
• 
H 
1.\ . 
RAJA BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH 
v. 
JAI NARAIN 
April 8, 1969 
[S. M. SIKRI, R S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
U.P.·Tenancy Act (U.P. 17 of 1939), s. 289-Suits under ss. 60, 61 
and 180 decreed-Possession handed over-Zamindari Abolition & La.nd 
Reforms Rules enacted-Suits abate-Defendant applies. for re:;titution of 
lands before revenue_ court~Revenue Court allows 
restitution-Appeals 
to both Civil and Revenue Courts-Civil Court allows Appeal-Revenue 
Court dismisses for default-Plea that Civil Court had n11 jurisdiction if 
C'an be permltted. 
-
The appellant instituted two suits in the Court of Assistant Collector 
(a Revenue Court) against the respondent under ss. 60, 61 and 180 of 
the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The suits were decreed, and the appellant 
took symbolical possession of the lands. __ The Assistant C'..omroissioner. 
affinned the decrees, and durin~ the vendencv of the-resvondent's second 
appeals in the High Court, the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & · 
Land Reforms Rules, 1952 came into force. The Board of Revenue held 
that in view of the Rules. the pending appeals as also the suits had abated. 
The respondent filed applications for restitution of the lanM under s. 114 
C.P.C. in the Court df A.sistant Collector. 
The Assistant Collector re-
ferred ihe issue whether the appellant had acquired Bhumidari rights to 
the civil court. He refused to recall the reference in spite of the respon .. 
denfs plea that he had no power to pass the order ·as no Question of pro-
prietary title had arisen. The civil court answered the issue in the negative, 
and the Asstt. Collector allowed the applications for restitution. 
As the 
apoellant was not certain about the proper forum of appeals against these 
orders of the Assistant Collector. he filed aooeals in the revenue court as 
also in the civil court. The Assistant Commissioner held that the revenue 
court had no iurisdiction to entertain aopeats and the appeals lay to the 
civil court under ss. 286(4) and 265(3) df the U.P. Tenancy Act. The 
aopellant filed revision petitions again-st the Orders before the ·Board of 
Revenue. 
In the meantime the apoeals filed before the civil court,.came · 
up for hearing. The resoondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the civt1 
~ourt. and did not contend that the civil· court had 'flO iurisdiction to enter~ 
lain the appeals. The Civil Judge allowed the appeals and dismissed the 
' application for restitution. 
Because of this decision. 
the appellant did 
not proceed with the pending revision petitions before the Board of 
Revenue and there the petitions were dismissed. The resoondent filed 
second anneals in the High Court aj!ainst the appellate orders o'f the civil -
court~ without takin~ the olea that the civil court had no iurisdiction to 
_entertain the anneals;. but later on he took the plea by 
addin~ - a new 
grounct. 
The High Court held t\lat the ~ppea1s lay to the revenue court · 
and the resnonde11t was not estovyed from 
raisin~ the co-p.tention. 
In 
mmeals. to thi• Court tlie appellant contendec! that the aPPeals Jay to the 
civil cou,.t and not to the revenue court. and ip the circumstances of this 
ca~ey and in view Of s. 289(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act. the respondent 
wa. {'reclllded from rahing the objection the! the. apyeals did nol lie to 
th' civil court. 
Allowin~ the appeals. this Court. 
HELD : Tn thi• case the doctrine of aoorohate and reorobate ·could 
not be ores~ into service to preclude the resoondent from raisin!! the 
obiection that the appeals did not lie to the civil court. as ·the court in 
which the procee<ling. were orlgin:illy filed !lu1 mcru rai•ed the objection, 
282 
SUPIU!MI! COURT lll!PORTS 
(1970] 1 S.C.R. 
ilut the effect of upholding his objection would be that tho appellant would 
be ~rived of his right of appeal altogether, and 1. 289(2) of the U.P. 
Tenancy Act is intended to prevent such srave miscarriage of justice, 
!237 F] 
Section 289(2) appli09 whenever any suit, application or appeal bavin1 
lljlOD rejected either by the civil court or revenue court on account of 
W11Dt of juri•diction is subsequently filed in the court of the other dtscrip-
tlon and the Janer court disagr- with the finding of the former. 
In 
such a cue, a reference to the Hlth Court i• compulsory and the conllict 
Of opinion is resolved by a decision of tho Hil!h Court which is binding 
on all court>. 
A court subordinate to the Collector 
cannot make the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.