Back
1963 Supreme(Bom) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(L.M. Paranjpe J.)
TOTARAM KRISHNAJI (Defendant) - Appellant
Versus
SHRIPAL SIDRA SWAMI MATH SANSTHAN, through Wahiwatdar (Plaintiff)- Respondent
For appellant- C.P. Kalele.
For respondent – Y.V. Jakatdar.
The civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide the plaintiffs claim for exemption from the operation of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, even though it was connected with the defendants claim that he was a protected tenant under section 3.
Headnote:
BERAR REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL LEASES ACT, 1951 - SECTION 3(4), 16(1), 16-A, 16-B, 2(E), 2(F) - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER 14, RULE 1 - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 114(E) - PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1951 (M.P. ACT NO. 30 OF 1951) - SECTION 2(4) - Whether the civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine the claim of the plaintiff for exemption from the operation of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 on the ground that it was a "person under disability" by virtue of section 3 (4) read with section 2 (f) thereof.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No. 99-A of 1955 for possession and for Rs. 900 as the value of the plaintiffs share of the crops on the following allegations: The plaintiff Sansthan was duly registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, and Shiomurti was appointed as its wahiwatdar or manager. The field had been let out for the year 1954-55 on a batai contract and the defendant had raised crops worth about Rs. 1,800. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to half share thereof, Rs. 900. The Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, did not apply to the plaintiff-trust and the orders passed by the Revenue Courts fixing the lease money at five times the land revenue and refusing permission to terminate the tenancy of the defendant were, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. Not being bound by that Act, ,the plaintiff was entitled to claim possession also.
Finding of the Court:
The civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the plaintiffs claim for exemption from the operation of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, even though it was connected with the defendants claim that he was a protected tenant under section 3.
Issues: Whether the civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine the claim of the plaintiff for exemption from the operation of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 on the ground that it was a "person under disability" by virtue of section 3 (4) read with section 2 (f) thereof.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be excluded unless it is specifically barred. 2. Normally, a civil Court shall be presumed to have jurisdiction to decide all such civil questions. 3. The provisions of section 16 (1) and 16-B of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 do not bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide questions about the status of the plaintiff which would entitle him to claim exemption from the operation of the Act or to decide such Claim for exemption from the operation of the Act. 4. A public trust of a religious or charitable nature is a person under disability within the meaning of section 2 (f) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951. 5. The plaintiff-trust was a public religious trust and, therefore, a person under disability within the meaning of section 2 (f) read with section 3 (4) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, and consequently that Act would not be applicable to the plaintiff and, therefore, the defendant could not become a protected lessee within the meaning of section 3 ibid.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed; Cross-objection allowed.
2. Field survey No. 115, area 27 acres and 28 gunthas, assessment Rs. 66-10-0, of mauza Rohinkhed belongs to the plaintiff-Shripal Sidha Swami Math Sansthan, which is a public trust. This field was let out to the defendant-appellant Totaram on a batai contract, by which the parties understood that half of the yield was to be given as lease-money. The defendant was accordingly in possession of the field from the year 1951-52 and onwards. In Revenue Case No. 131/51-B of 1953-54, decided on the 14th of May 1954, the Sub Divisional Officer, Malkapur, had fixed the liability of the defendant for lease-money at five times the assessment. In Revenue Appeal No. 71/51.B of 1954-55, decided on the 10th of January 1955, the Deputy Commissioner, Buldana, had rejected the application of the landlord-plaintiff for termination of the defendants lease. In the year 1954-55 to which the present litigation relates, the defendant was and continued to be in possession, as the lessee of the field.
3. The plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No. 99-A of 1955 for possession and for Rs. 900 as the value of the plaintiffs share of the crops on the following allegations:
The plaintiff Sansthan was duly registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, and Shiomurti was appointed as its wahiwatdar or manager. The field had been let out for the year 1954-55 on a batai contract and the defendant had raised crops worth about Rs. 1,800. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to half share thereof, Rs. 900. The Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, did not apply to the plaintiff-trust and the orders passed by the Revenue Courts fixing the lease money at five times the land revenue and refusing permission to terminate the tenancy of the defendant were, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff. Not being bound by that Act, ,the plaintiff was entitled to claim possession also.
4. The defendant-appellant contested the suit on the following grounds:
The plaintiff-Sansthan was not registered as a public trust according to law. Shiomurti was not its legally appointed wahiwatdar. The defendant had been cultivating the suit field on lease since the year 1951 and had, therefore, become a protected lessee under section 3 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951. He had not agreed to deliver half of the produce to the plaintiff for the year 1954-55 because the maximum lease-money was already fixed at five times the land revenue by the revenue authorities on the 14th of May 1954. The defendant being a protected lessee, the plaintiff cannot claim possession of the field. The decisions and orders of the revenue. Courts were binding on the plaintiff who was a party to those proceedings. The plaintiffs claim was untenable.
5. The learned trial Judge found that the net profits yielded by the field were Rs.900 and granted Rs. 450 to the plaintiff as its half share of the produce. The learned Judge also decreed the claim for possession holding that the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, was not applicable to the plaintiff. In Civil Appeal No. 37-A of 1956, the learned Additional District Judge, Khamgaon, affirmed the decree for possession but dismissed the claim for mesne profits. The defendant-appellant has now come up in second appeal to challenge the decree for possession. The plaintiff-respondent has filed cross objections to challenge the dismissal of its claim for lease-money.
6. The important point which falls for decision in this appeal is, whether the civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine the claim of the plaintiff for exemption from the operation of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act,1951 on the ground that it was a "person under disability" by virtue of section 3 (4) read with section 2 (f) thereof. The learned Advocate for
