Kedar and ors. Vs. Deo NaraIn and ors.

Kedar and ors. vs Deo NaraIn and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 16, 1915

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/457743

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/457743
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Henry Richards, C.J. and ;Pramada Charan Banerji, J.
Decided On: Jul 16, 1915
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Act (Local) No. II of 1901 (Agra Tenancy Act), Section 32 - Suit for possession of portion of holding--Suit maintainable. -

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kedar and ors.

Respondent

Deo NaraIn and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1915All489; (1915)ILR37All656

Excerpt

act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 32 - suit for possession of portion of holding--suit maintainable. - .....a fixed rate holding. the lower courts and this court have dismissed the suit as being barred by section 32 of the tenancy act and as having been concluded by the authority of the case of achhey lal v. janki prasad (1909) i.l.r. 31 all. 348. section 32 of the agra tenancy act provides that 'no division of a holding or distribution of the rent payable in respect thereof, made by the co-owners therein shall be binding on the land-holder unless it is made with his consent.' clause (2) provides that no suit or other proceeding for the division of a holding or distribution of the rent thereof shall be entertained in any civil or revenue court.' it is quite clear that all that section 32 provides against is the splitting up of a holding or the distribution of the rent so as to bind the land-holders. clause (2) does no more than enact that a suit brought for such a purpose shall not be entertained by a civil or revenue court. in the present case the plaintiff alleges that he has become the owner, entitled to possession, of portion of a fixed rate tenancy and that the defendant is a trespasser. he does not ask for the division of the holding nor for the distribution of the rent. he does not seek to bind the land-holder in any way by the suit he brings. it seems to us therefore that section 32 does not bar the present suit. we may mention that the case relied upon by the lower appellate court and the learned judge of this court has been overruled by the full bench decision in najib-ullah v. gulsher khan (1906) i.l.r. 29 all. 66. as the suit was decided on a preliminary point in the lower courts the case must be remanded. we accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of this court and also of both the courts below, and remand the case to the court of first instance through the lower appellate court with directions to re-admit the suit under its original number in the file and proceed to hear and determine the same according to law. costs here and hitherto.....

Full Judgment

Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed one biswa, which was alleged to be part of 4 biswas which constituted a fixed rate holding. The lower courts and this Court have dismissed the suit as being barred by Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and as having been concluded by the authority of the case of Achhey Lal v. Janki Prasad (1909) I.L.R. 31 All. 348. Section 32 of the Agra Tenancy Act provides that 'no division of a holding or distribution of the rent payable in respect thereof, made by the co-owners therein shall be binding on the land-holder unless it is made with his consent.' Clause (2) provides that no suit or other proceeding for the division of a holding or distribution of the rent thereof shall be entertained in any Civil or Revenue Court.' It is quite clear that all that Section 32 provides against is the splitting up of a holding or the distribution of the rent so as to bind the land-holders. Clause (2) does no more than enact that a suit brought for such a purpose shall not be entertained by a Civil or Revenue Court. In the present case the plaintiff alleges that he has become the owner, entitled to possession, of portion of a fixed rate tenancy and that the defendant is a trespasser. He does not ask for the division of the holding nor for the distribution of the rent. He does not seek to bind the land-holder in any way by the suit he brings. It seems to us therefore that Section 32 does not bar the present suit. We may mention that the case relied upon by the lower appellate court and the learned Judge of this Court has been overruled by the Full Bench decision in Najib-ullah v. Gulsher Khan (1906) I.L.R. 29 All. 66. As the suit was decided on a preliminary point in the lower courts the case must be remanded. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of this Court and also of both the courts below, and remand the case to the court of first instance through the lower appellate court with directions to re-admit the suit under its original number in the file and proceed to hear and determine the same according to law. Costs here and hitherto will be costs in the cause.

Same Parties Kedar and ors. vs Deo NaraIn and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge Henry Richards, C.J. and ;Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

Property