Sokhai Vs. Ram Pershad

Sokhai vs Ram Pershad

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided May 11, 1910

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/495867

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/495867
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Chamier, J.
Decided On: May 11, 1910
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

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

Agra Tenancy Act (II of 1901), Section 79 - Landlord and tenant--Dispossession of tenant--Landlord letting out land in occupation of tenant to a third person--Tenant's remedy in Revenue Court not Civil--Jurisdiction. - - The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to show that he was...

Key legal issue: Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sokhai

Respondent

Ram Pershad

Legal References

Cases Referred: Ram Lal v. Chuni Lal
Reported In: 7Ind.Cas.486

Excerpt

agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 79 - landlord and tenant--dispossession of tenant--landlord letting out land in occupation of tenant to a third person--tenant's remedy in revenue court not civil--jurisdiction. - - the first court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to show that he was an occupancy tenant or had been in occupation of the plots at any time within 12 years before the suit. the plaintiff appealed and the district judge maintained the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendant was a trespasser. the learned judge evidently thought that the case was like the case of ram lal v......the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendant was a trespasser. having carefully considered the judgment of the learned judge, i have come to the conclusion that what he intended to hold was that the defendant had entered into possession of the plots in suit under a lease granted by a raja of manda. for he refers to a qabuliat which was produced by one of the witnesses. the learned judge evidently thought that the case was like the case of ram lal v. chuni lal 2 a.l.j. 69 : 27 a. 372 in which mr. justice aikman said: 'when a land-holder lets land in the occupation of a tenant to a third party and he acting under the land holder's authority takes possession of the land, then, in my opinion, the tenant must be deemed to have been ousted by the landholder, and his remedy is by a suit under section 79 of act ii of 1901, the person claiming through the land-holder being joined as a defendant to the suit under the provisions of section 81 of the act.' i take it that the learned judge was of opinion that if the plaintiff was ever in possession, he was dispossessed by the land-holder who thereafter let the land to the defendant and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. accepting what i consider to be the finding of the learned district judge, i dismiss this appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.

Full Judgment

Chamier, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of two plots of land. The case of the plaintiff appellant was that he was an occupancy tenant of the plots and was in peaceable possession thereof up to the year 1907, when the defendant dispossessed him. The defendant's case is that he did not dispossess the plaintiff and that he has held the plots as tenant of the Raja of Manda for the last ten years. He pleaded also that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court. The first Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to show that he was an occupancy tenant or had been in occupation of the plots at any time within 12 years before the suit. The plaintiff appealed and the District Judge maintained the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendant was a trespasser. Having carefully considered the judgment of the learned Judge, I have come to the conclusion that what he intended to hold was that the defendant had entered into possession of the plots in suit under a lease granted by a Raja of Manda. For he refers to a qabuliat which was produced by one of the witnesses. The learned Judge evidently thought that the case was like the case of Ram Lal v. Chuni Lal 2 A.L.J. 69 : 27 A. 372 in which Mr. Justice Aikman said: 'When a land-holder lets land in the occupation of a tenant to a third party and he acting under the land holder's authority takes possession of the land, then, in my opinion, the tenant must be deemed to have been ousted by the landholder, and his remedy is by a suit under Section 79 of Act II of 1901, the person claiming through the land-holder being joined as a defendant to the suit under the provisions of Section 81 of the Act.' I take it that the learned Judge was of opinion that if the plaintiff was ever in possession, he was dispossessed by the land-holder who thereafter let the land to the defendant and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. Accepting what I consider to be the finding of the learned District Judge, I dismiss this appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.

Same Parties Sokhai vs Ram Pershad Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Chamier, J.

Tenancy