Judgement

SIKRI, J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Bharat in Civil Miscellaneous Application No 91 of 1955, read with Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 92 of 1955, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by Rao Jagdish Singh and others. By this judgment the High Court accepted the applications and quashed the decision of the Board of Revenue and dismissed the claim of Lallu Yeshwant Singh, son of Nahar Singh, now deceased, represented by Babu Singh, appellant, before us. The relevant facts for appreciating the points arising in the appeal are as follows.

2. Yeshwant Singh and other sons of Lallu Nahar Singh, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed a suit against Rao Jagdish Singh & 4 others (Revenue Case No.24 of 2000 S. Y.) in the Court of Tehsildar, Pargana Pichhore, District Gwalior, for the possession of some agricultural land under Section 326 of Qanoon Mal. The plaintiffs case, in brief, was that they were sairdakhilkar cultivators and that Rao Jagdish Singh, defendant No. 1, had forcibly prevented the plaintiffs from doing cultivation and got the disputed land cultivated by defendants Nos. 2 and 3, by interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs prayed that a decree for possession may be passed in their favour against all the defendants. The defendants: case, in brief was that the village in which the land in dispute is situated is Ryotwari village and no suit could be instituted against Jagirdars under Section 326. The defendants further alleged that the plaintiffs had failed to pay revenue and their rights had been extinguished under Section 82 of Qanoon Ryotwari. The Tehsildar decreed the suit. The Collector on appeal upheld the order. The Commissioner on further appeal also upheld the order. On revision, the Board of Revenue agreed with the Commissioner and dismissed the revision.

3. On behalf of the appellant it is contended (1) that in a suit under Section 326 Qanoon Mal, read with Section 163, Qanoon Ryotwari, a plaintiff is entitled to recover possession if he is dispossessed from prior juridical possession, within six months of the suit, and the question of title is irrelevant in such a suit and (2) that a landlord cannot forcibly enter and drive out the tenant whose tenancy is alleged to have been extinguished.

4. The relevant statutory provisions are as follows :

"Qanoon Ryotwari

Section 82. The right of the pukhta Maurusi, Sakitul Milkiyat and Mamuli Maurasi will be extinguished under the following circumstances :

3. When the Khatedar keeps in arrears the land revenue of his khata excepting the case where the collection of land revenue is ordered to be postponed;......

Section 137. In case the land revenue for the whole year is not paid before one week of the date fixed for the last instalment the khatedar will be dealt with as follows :-

1. By issue of process;

2. By arrest of the defaulter;

3. By attachment and sale of movable property;

4. By attachment and sale of immovable property;

5. By confiscation (Jupti) of the khata and ejectment of the defaulter;

6. By auctioning the khata;

Provided if the arrears are due against such khatedar who has been a good payer (kush-dehanda) and for some special reason for some years not by his own mischief but for reason beyond his control, the Suba (Collector) will be entitled to accept his instalments upto three years.

Section 163. Suits of trespass and obstruction between khatedars and between khatedars and other persons will be entertained in that Sega (Dept.) court and limitation which is described in Section 326 of Qanoon Mal Riyasat Gwalior Samvat 1983 and Sections 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 and 335 so far as they are applicable or appendices of the Qanoon Mal shall apply as may be applicable to the suits under Section 326 of the said Act.

Qanoon Mal

Section 325. If any person claiming to be in possession of any agricultural land desires his name to be entered in Revenue pa