Harji Vs. Bansi and anr.

Harji vs Bansi and anr.

Disposition Application dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Sep 29, 1972

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758760

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/758760
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Jagat Narayan, C.J.
Decided On: Sep 29, 1972
Case Number: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 472 of 1969
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

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

Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Sections 187 & 207--A tenant prevented from obtaining possession of his holding by orders of court--Held, he is entitled to mesne profits.;The plaintiff was entitled to possession of his holding as be was its tenant. He was prevented from taking possession of his holding by orders issued ...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Harji

Respondent

Bansi and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Bhawaniram v. Seth Ram Narain
Reported In: 1972WLN659

Excerpt

.....possessor of his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the tenancy law for the time being in force.;the term 'compensation' is wider in scope than the term 'mesne profits' and it includes the latter, because in assessing the measure of condensation the court has to take into account the mesne profits of the property. obviously a claim to compensation for keeping the plaintiff out of the possession of agricultural land includes a claim to mesne profits. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, may sue the person so ejecting him or keeping him out of possession for all or any of the following reliefs, namely:(1) ...(ii) for compensation for wrongful ejectment or dispossession;section 207 of the act runs as follows:207. suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only -(1) all suits and applications of the nature specified in the third schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court,(2) no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit of application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application.explanation:if the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with that, which the revenue court have granted.7. two contentions have been raised on behalf of the applicant. the fist contention is that section 187 of the act has no application the plaintiff was not prevented from taking possession otherwise than in accordance with law. but, he was prevented from doing so by orders passed by courts of law.8. this contention has no force. the actual words used are 'prevention from obtaining possession of his holding... otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force.' according to the law contained in the tenancy acts the plaintiff was entitled to possession over his holding as he was its tenant. he was prevented from taking possession of his holding by ordery issued by various courts. from time to time at the instance of the defendants. but, nevertheless, he. was prevented from taking possession of his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the tenancy law for the time being in force.9. the second contention is that a suit for mesne profits is not a suit for.....

Full Judgment

Jagat Narayan, C.J.

1. This is a revision application by the plaintiff against an appellate order of the District Judge, Alwar holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit for recovery of mesne profits.

2. The defendants have not appeared to contest the revision application.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and have perused the record.

4. Harji plaintiff is the tenant of a holding consisting of five(sic) situated in village Patan-ka-Bas having an area of 11 Bighas 7 Biswas He was dispossessed by Bansi and Bhagirath on 21-9-48 He filed a suit in the Revenue Court and finally an order for his reinstatement was passed on 8-7-55 by the Board of Revenue. The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court against the decision of the Board of Revenue which was admitted and a stay order, was passed preventing the plaintiff-applicant from taking possession over the plots. Their writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 27-8-56 The respondents then filed a suit for injunction in the court of Munsif, Rajgarh, and and an, ex-parte ad interim injunction was obtained on 13.9.56 which was vacaon 17.4.57 The respondents filed an appeal against that order on 22-4-57 and on the same day an order of temporary injunction was issued in favour of the respondents. The appeal was dismissed on 5.3.58. The respondents filed a revision application in the High Court and obtained a stay order. The revision application was dismissed on 1-10 59 and possession was restorted to the plaintiff on 7-3-60 On 11.10.60 he filed the present suit in the court of Civil Judge claiming mesne profits from 12.10.57 to 1-10-60. The Civil Judge held that the suit was of the nature falling under Section 187 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He accordingly returned the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court.

5. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge but his appeal was dismissed. He has filed the present revision application.

6. The relevant part of Section 187, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, runs as follows:

187. Remedies for wrongful ejectment-

(1) Any tenant ejected from or prevented from obtaining possession of his holding or, any part, there of otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, may sue the person so ejecting him or keeping him out of possession for all or any of the following reliefs, namely:

(1) ...

(ii) for compensation for wrongful ejectment or dispossession;

Section 207 of the Act runs as follows:

207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only -

(1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court,

(2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit of application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application.

Explanation:If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with that, which the revenue court have granted.

7. Two contentions have been raised on behalf of the applicant. The fist contention is that Section 187 of the Act has no application the plaintiff was not prevented from taking possession otherwise than in accordance with law. But, he was prevented from doing so by orders passed by courts of law.

8. This contention has no force. The actual words used are 'prevention from obtaining possession of his holding... otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force.' According to the law contained in the Tenancy Acts the plaintiff was entitled to possession over his holding as he was its tenant. He was prevented from taking possession of his holding by ordery issued by various courts. from time to time at the instance of the defendants. But, nevertheless, he. was prevented from taking possession of his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Law for the time being in force.

9. The second contention is that a suit for mesne profits is not a suit for compensation for wrongful dispossession. This contention also has no force. It was held in Bhawaniram v. Seth Ram Narain 1955 RLW 112 that the term 'compensation 'is wider in scope than the term 'mesne profits' and it includes the latter, because in assessing the measure of compensation the court has to take into account the masne profits of the property. Obviously a claim to compensation for keeping the plaintiff out of the possession of agricultural land includes a claim to mesne profits.'

10. I accordingly, dismiss the revision application. No order as to cost.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1972 Same Parties Harji vs Bansi and anr. Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Jagat Narayan, C.J.

Tenancy