Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1966 (2) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llegal possession thereof. The appellant contested the suit mainly on the ground that he was the khatedar of the said land and that he was in possession thereof in that capacity. He also pleaded that his title to the property was declared by the Tahsildar in an application for ejectment filed by him against the respondents under the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (Act No, IV of 1932), hereinafter called the Act and that the said decision would be a bar to the maintainability of the suit in a civil court. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Bhopal held that the respondents were the khatedars of the suit land and that they had been in possession thereof in that capacity. He held that the suit was maintainable in a civil court. 4. On .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt held that the appellant was the khatedar of the land in dispute and the respondents were his shikmi tenants. The present contention is that the said decree was given by a court of exclusive jurisdiction and, therefore, the respondents could not reagitate the same subject-matter in a civil court. 9. Under s. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a civil court can entertain a suit of a civil nature except a suit of which its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It is settled principle that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a civil court to establish his contention. It is also equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly construed. The question is whe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... but for a contract, would be liable to pay rent for such land to that occupant, but does not include a mortgage or a person holding land directly from Government. Occupant is defined to mean a person who holds land direct from Government or would do so but the right of collecting land revenue having been assigned or relinquished . Section 71, therefore, presupposes the existence of a legal relationship of landlord and tenant and enables the occupant to evict his shikmi if he does not comply with one or other of the conditions mentioned therein; it does not comprehend a decision on a question of title. The question of title is a matter foreign to the scope of s. 71. If so, a suit in a civil court for a declaration of title and possession .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tuted within one year from the date on which the contents of the record were announced under section 88. Section 95. Any entry in the register of rights shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved, and all other entries in the record of rights, subject to any change which may be ordered in appeal, revision or review only or by a civil court under sub-section (3) of section 93, shall be conclusive evidence of the facts to which they relate. 12. On the basis of the said provisions it is argued that under the said provisions the right of a person to hold land shall be entered in the register of rights under s. 89(2) of the Act and a dispute in respect thereof shall be decided by the Tahsildar under s. 93(1) thereof and t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which are not in pari materia with those with which we are now concerned. They do not, therefore, throw any light on the construction of the relevant provisions of the Act. 14. It is, therefore, clear that s. 200(1) of the Act, read with the said group of sections, does not exclude the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain a suit based on title. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that though the patta was granted in favour of the ancestors of the respondents in the year 1929 it was revoked later on, that under the new settlement of 1935 the appellant's name was recorded in the register of rights, that in subsequent khasras up to 1953 his name continued to be shown as the owner of the suit land and that, ther .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates