JUDGMENT :- This is a second appeal from the judgment of the Civil Judge, Fyzabad, in a suit for possession.

2. The facts of this case are simple. The plaintiff claiming to be a co-sharer in certain property including the plots in dispute in this case brought, a suit against defendants 1 and 2 for possession. on the allegations that the plots which belonged to the plaintiff and some other co-sharers including defendant 2 had been sold to defendant 1 by defendant 2 as his exclusive property and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to possession of those plots.

3. The defendants contested the suit. They denied that the plaintiff had, any share in the property. A plea of jurisdiction was also raised and it was alleged that the suit was not within the cognizance of the civil court.

4. The learned Munsif who heard the case came to the conclusion that the suit was cognizable by the civil Court and also found that the plaintiff and defendant 2 were co-sharers in the plots which had been sold by defendant 2 to defendant 1. He also held that defendant 2 had no right to sell specific plots to defendant 1 and on, these findings he passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 1 then went in appeal to the District Judge and the Civil Judge who heard the appeal concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal with a slight modification in respect of costs. Defendant 1 has now come up in second appeal.

5. The first point which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that the suit was not within the cognizance of the civil Court inasmuch as the suit was covered by the provisions of S. 180, U.P. Tenancy Act and in view of the provisions of S. 242 of the Act a suit such as the one which has given rise to this appeal could not be-instituted in the civil Court. Section 180 as it stands at present is the result of an amendment, made in 1947. Before the amendment the section stood as follows :

"A person taking or retaining possession of a plot or plots of land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force and without the written consent of the person entitled to admit him as tenant shall be liable to ejectment under this section, on the suit of the person so entitled."

The section was amended by S. 18, U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act 10 of 1947 and two explanations were added to the section besides some other amendments.

Explanation I added in 1947 runs as follows :

"A co-sharer in the proprietary rights in a plot of land taking or retaining possession of such plot without the consent of the whole body of co-sharers or of an agent appointed to act on behalf of all of them shall be deemed to be in possession of such plot otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law within the meaning of this section."

6. After the amendment to the U.P. Tenancy Act in 1947 and the addition of explanation there is no doubt that a suit by one co-sharer against another who has entered into possession of joint land without the consent of all the co-sharers can be maintained in the revenue court and such a suit would be exclusively cognizable by the revenue Court in view of the provisions of S. 242, U.P. Tenancy Act. It remains, however, to be seen if even before the amendment such a suit was exclusively within the cognizance of the revenue Court and this would depend entirely on the meaning of the unamended section. As mentioned above a suit against a person who was in possession otherwise than in accordance with law and secondly without the written consent of the person entitled to admit him was cognizable by the revenue Court. The question for decision, however, would then be if a co-sharer in possession of a plot of land belonging jointly to several co-sharers could be said to be a person in possession contrary to law.

A co-sharer in peaceful possession of joint land cannot be said to be in possession of land contrary to the provisions of law and the meaning now assi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document