The jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a suit between a bargadar and the owner whose land the bargadar cultivates, with regard to any of the matters specified in sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, is not barred by sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the said Act, where no Board has been established under the said Act for the local area within which the land in question is situated.

( 1 ) THE facts out of which this reference to the Full Bench has arisen are briefly as follows: In April, 1953 the plaintiff Mahendra Nath Roy instituted a suit in the Court of the learned Second Munsif, Alipore, exercising the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge, under the Provincial Small cause Courts Act (Act IX of 1887), against the defendants Delraddi Chakdar and Debaraddi Chakdar, being S. C. C. No. 213 of 1953, claiming a sum of Rupees 319-8-0 being the value of the plaintiff's half share of the produce of the land in suit. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were Bhag Chasis under the plaintiff and that the defendants had neither delivered to the plaintiff his share of the produce for the period 1st Baisakh 1357 B. S. to the end of Chaitra 1359 B. S. not paid to him the value thereof. The defendants denied the allegations in the plaint. They denied that they were Bhag Chasis under the plaintiff, asserting that they were tenants under him. It appears, however, that the tenancy right of the defendants in the suit land had been negatived in previous proceeding and before the learned Munsif they contested the suit on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in as much the suit was barred by the provisions of Sections 7 (1) (a) and 9 (2) of the West Bengal Bargadars Act 1950 (West Bengal Act II of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" ). The learned Munsif upheld the contention and ordered that the plaint be returned for being filed in the proper forum. The plaintiff then made an application for revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887, which empowers the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, to call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit. The matter came up before Debabrata Mookerjee, J. He referred to certain judgments of this Court including the Division Bench judgment in Md. Ismail Miah v. Tom Munda (1955) 59 Cal WN 658 to which he was himself a party. In that case, the judgment was delivered by K. C. Das Gupta J. , who held that if no Board that been established for the local area within which the land was situated, there could not be a decision by a Board, but that did not give the Civil Court a right to entertain a suit relating to matters under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said act, because such matters must be decided by the Board referred to in that sub-section. The learned Judge felt himself bound by the decision, but was of the opinion that in the matter before him a distinction could be drawn inasmuch as the dispute related to the division or delivery of the produce, whereas in the Bench decision, it was the question of termination of cultivation as referred to in clause (c) of Section 7 (1) of the said Act, and the question did not fall to be considered as to whether a dispute relating to the division or delivery of the produce including also the money equivalent of such produce, with the result that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be ousted even if the claim related to realisation of the price of the bhag-share of the produce. The learned Judge referred to an unreported decision of Das Gupta J. C. R. No. 1415 of 1954 (Cal), Dhirendra Nath Chakraborty v. Ramlal Mandal decided on 7. 1. 1955 in which the learned Judge was dealing with a claim for the value of half the produce deliverable by a Bargadar and considered the question as settled by the said Division Bench ruling, and held that the suit was barred under Section 9 (2) of the said Act. Mookerjee J. did not agree with the decision but, regard being had to the importance of the matter referred it for disposal by a Division Bench. The Division Bench presided over by Bachawat J. , considered the D. B. case of (1955) 59 Cal WN 658 (supra), but felt that they were unable to agree with the view expressed therein to the