The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act must be brought by the tenants, not the plaintiff.

Walsh, J.

1. The petitioner in this case is the wife of the defendant. She brought a suit alleging that she got certain lands from her father-in-law under a gift deed, that she has been in possession and enjoyment of that land-till the end of March 1929, and that she had leased out the said land, the last of the registered deeds being Ex. F, a registered kabulrat for ten years dated 5th June 1929. She stated in her plaint that her tenants on 29th June 1929 sent; her a registered postcard Ex. G which-reached the plaintiff on 2nd July 1929 saying that they do not find it suitable to carry on cultivation and gave up possession of the land. They also said in Ex. G that the plaintiff might get the lands cultivated as it pleased her. In para. 5 of the plaint she states:

Then the plaintiff sent her brother Movva Rammayya to Tenali and Guntur on 3rd July 1929 to take the letter and get legal advice. In the meanwhile the defendant wrongfully entered upon the suit land without the plaintiffs knowledge and consent, removed the field ridge, watered the field and unlawfully transplanted the same.

2. In para. 6 she states:

As soon as the plaintiffs brother returned from Tenali he saw the unauthorised cultivation after the removal of the ridge by the defendant, remonstrated with the defendant and complained to the elders in the village. But the defendant refused to restore possession to the plaintiff.

3. In para. 7 she alleges:

The suit land was in the rightful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff till 2nd July 1929. The defendant dispossessed the plaintiff unlawfully on 3rd July 1929, trespassed upon the land without the plaintiffs knowledge and concurrence, transplanted the field and refused to give up possession in favour of the plaintiff.

4. She sued under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for possession. The Court found the merits of the case to be with the plaintiff, but non-suited her because on the authority of Veeraswami Mudali v. Venkatachala Mudali 1926 Mad. 18, the plaintiff could not bring such a suit but only the tenants. Against this decision the present revision petition has been filed. A preliminary objection has been raised that no appeal or review lies against the decree under Section 9, Specific Belief Act, because the petitioner has got other remedies. No doubt the Allahabad High Court held so in Ram Anand v. Sheo Bala (1921) 63 I.C. 809 which followed Jwala v. Ganga Prasad (1908) 80 All. 831 and Ram Kishan Das v. Jaikishan (1911) 33 All. 647. In Devate Sri Ramamurti v. Venkata Sitaramachandra Rao 1914 Mad. 382, in a Letters Patent appeal against the order of Sankaran Nair, J., passed in revision, the Allahabad view was generally followed but in our High Court this rule is not regarded as absolute as can be seen from the judgment reported in Veeraswami Mudali v. Venkatachala Mudali 1926 Mad. 18 quoted above in which Jackson, J., sums up this matter thus:

Plaintiffs have their remedy by the way of suit and in such circumstances this Court will not ordinarily interfere by way of revision : Devate Sri Ramamurti v. Venkata Sitaramaehandra Rao 1914 Mad. 382 and Krishna Doss v. Chandook Chand (1909) 32 Mad. 334.

5. But if the remedy is clear the parties will not necessarily be driven to another suit in Krishna Doss v. Chandook Chand (1909) 32 Mad. 334. I therefore overrule the preliminary objection. As to the merits it has not been denied before me that the decision of this Court quoted above Veeraswami Mudali v. Venkatachala Mudali 1926 Mad. 18, on which the learned District Munsif relies, supports him. Jackson, J, upholds the view that such a suit must be brought by the tenants. He says:

I think it clear from the above examination tot the authorities that the view of the learned District Munsif is well supported and there is no justification for revision. I consider that the question is concluded by Sitaram v. Ram Lal (1896) 18 All. 440, Ramanadhan Chetty v. Pulikutti Servai (1898) 21 Mad. 288 and Mohideen Revuthar v. Jayarama