Allahabad Court October 1934 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jumma Das and anr. Vs. Misri Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All271
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act, by the Collector of Agra. It appears that a suit was instituted by one of several co-sharers of certain occupancy holdings for profits in the Court of the Munsif, Agra, who returned the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court on the ground that the suit is one which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. The learned Munsif made a reference to Section 99, Agra Tenancy Act, (3 of 1926), besides Section 230 of the same Act. The defendant is not represented in this Court and it is not clear whether it was on his objection that the learned Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. We do not find anything in Section 99 which may be applicable to the circumstances of this case. Perhaps the learned Munsif thought that the suit was one by a co-sharer in an occupancy holding for compensation for wrongful dispossession by another co-sharer who is holding under the same landlo...
Jumna Das and anr. Vs. Misri Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.37
1. This is a reference under Section 267, Agra Tenancy Act, by the Collector of Agra. It appears that a suit was instituted by one of several co-sharers of certain occupancy holdings for profits in the Court of the Munsif, Agra, who returned the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court on the ground that the suit is one which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. The learned Munsif made a reference to Section 99, Agra Tenancy Act, (III of 1926), besides Section 230 of the same Act the defendant is not represented in this Court and it is not clear, whether it was on his objection that the learned Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. We do not find anything in Section 99 which may be applicable to the circumstances of this case. Perhaps the learned Munsif thought that the suit was one by a co-sharer in an occupancy holding for compensation for wrongful dispossession by another co-sharer who is holding under the same landlord as the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›