Back
1928 Supreme(Nagpur) 90
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Ghulam Mohiuddin
NANHE AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
GANDEO AND ORS – Respondent
Decided on : 18-07-1928
The court affirmed the principle that the possession of the abadi land would be given to the cosharer in whose patti it falls and confirmed the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit.
Headnote:
possession - abadi site - The court interpreted the partition order and found that the possession of the abadi land would be given to the cosharer in whose patti it falls. The court also affirmed the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit for possession of the abadi site.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of an abadi site used as bari against the defendants. The trial court decreed plaintiffs' claim, which was affirmed by the Court of the Additional District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interpretation of the partition order was correct, affirmed the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Issues: Interpretation of the partition order, jurisdiction of the civil court, and the necessity of an inquiry about the period of appellants' possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The possession of the abadi land would be given to the cosharer in whose patti it falls, the civil court has jurisdiction to try such suits, and an inquiry about the period of appellants' possession was not necessary.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Ghulam Mohiuddin, A J C—The plaintiffs have filed this suit for possession of an abadi site used as bari against the defendants who own another patti in the same village. The defendant stated that they have been in possession of the plot for the last 40 years, and that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by time. The trial Court found that 1st April 1925 was the date from which the partition order was to take effect and that the plot in suit was allotted to the plaintiffs, and, therefore decreed plaintiffs' claim. The defendants filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, which was dismissed.
2. The first point which is urged on behalf of the appellants is that the lower appellate Court has not properly construed Ex. P-2, the order of the partitioning officer, in holding that the previous possession of the respective cosharers over abadi was disturbed. It is clear from the order that the abadi land was divided and it is admitted by the defendants that the land in suit fell into plaintiffs' patti. The interpretation which has been put by the lower appellate Court on the order as contained in Ex. P-2 that the possession of the abadi land will be given to the cosharer in whose patti it falls, seems to be correct.
3. The next point which was urged was about the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain this suit. It was argued that the revenue Court could have delivered possession under Section 31, Land Eevenue Act, and the civil Court cannot do so. Matters excepted from the jurisdiction of he civil Court are mentioned in Section 220, 1929 N/3 & 4
4. Land Eevenue Act, and the said Act contains no provision that the civil Court is precluded from trying a suit of the nature of this suit. The suit could be entertained in the civil Courts and they have jurisdiction to try such such suits.
5. The last ground is about the inquiry which was not made about the period of the appellants' possession. The cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs accrued after the passing of the order by the partitioning officer and, therefore, an inquiry about the period of appellants' possession was not necessary.
6. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed with costs.
Final Result : Dismissed
