LexSHRI RAJA DURGA SINGH OF SOLAN versus THOLU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 693 SlIRI RAJA DURGA SINGH OF SOLAN v. THOLU . (K. C. DAs GuPTA and.J. &. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) .. • Juri&tlktion of court-Suit for ejectment of licence from . agricmtural lands-Defendant claiming to be tenant-Sui< if . maintainable in Civil Court-Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 (Punj. XVI o/ 1887), ••· 44 and 47. The appellant filed a suit before the Civil Ccurt for the ejectment of the respondents on the ground that they were licenses. .The respondents claimed that they· we1e occu- pancy tenants and contended that under s. 77 of the Pwnjab Tenancy Act, 1887, the suit was triable by a revenue court only and not by the civil court. The trial court and the first· appellate court decreed the suit holding that the respondents were not tenants. On. 'second appeal the Judicial Commis- sioner held that the respondents were ·occupancy tenants and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Heltl, that the civil court had jurisdiction tO entertain the suit. Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Art was appli- cable only to suits between landlord and tenant> where there - was no dispute that the person cultivating the land was a tenant. But where the status of the defendant as a tenant was not admitted by the landlord, s. 77 did not har " suit in a civil court. Sham Singh v. Amarjil Singh, (1930) I. L; R. 12 Lah. Ill and Baru v. Niaaar, (1942) I. L. R. 24Lah. 191, F. B., approved. Magiti Sasamal v. Pandab BisBOi, [1962] 3 S. C. R. 673 relied on. ' HeU, further that the finding of the first two courts that the respond~nts ~ere not tenants was one. ,,f fact even though documentary evidence had to be considered in determining the. question ~d !h~Judicial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with It In second appeal. The Judicial Commis- sioner had ignored the presumption which ~ose from entires in the revenue records under s. 44 of the Act and this vitiated his findings. Where there is conflict between prior and subse- quent entries, the later entries must prevail. 1~61 - May 1. 19~1 Shri Raja Du.rio Si•th of Solon v. Tllolu Mudholkar J. 694 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 382 of l 9tl0. Appeal by special leave from thP- judgmt>nt a.ud decree dated October 3;, 1957, of the Judicial Commiadioner's Court of Himachal Prad~sh at Simla in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 8, of 11157. Achhru Ram and Nau.nit Lal, for the appellant . .tlnil Ku.mar Gupta, S. C. Agrawal, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamu.rthy, for the respondents. 1962. May I. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J.- In this appeal by special leave against the judgment of tbe Judicial Commis- sioner, Himachal .Pradesh in second appeal two points have been urged on behalf of thP. appellant. The first' is that the Court of the Judicial Commis- sioner was in error in interfering with a finding of ' fact of the District Judge and the second is that the Court of the Judicial Commissioner was wrong in holding that the suit wa.e .uot triable by a. civil court but is triable by a revenue court under s. 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1!!87 (Punj. XVI of 1887) (hereina.ft.lr referred to a.e the Act) which applies to Himaohal Pradesh. In order to appreciate these points it is necessary to state some facts. The appellant who was plaintiff in the suit was the former ruler of the State of Bhagat, one of the Simla Hill 1'\tates. The State of Bhagat and several other Simla. HUI States were merged in Hima.chal Pradesh on July I, 1947. As a consequence of the merger the ruler surreudered his sovereignty to the new States. Khasra. Noe. 70, 80, 81, 167, 26il/170, 171, 172, 173 and 269/ l 77 measuring in all 15 bighas and J 9 w ' r - 2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPOR'l'S 61:15 biswas, among other property, were declared to be the private property of the appellant. It is the appellant's oase that these fields a.re his Kkud- kkast lands, that they are recorded as much in the revenue papers ever since the year. 1936 and· that the defendants were granted licence to cultivate these lands on his behalf with the obligation that the entire produce from the lands should be handed over by them to the appellant at the end of every year. The consideration . for the arrangement was a. remission in rent and land revenue which · the appellant had granted to the respondents with · respect to certain o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.