Allahabad High Court
Udit Narain Singh And Ors. vs Shib Raj on 4 January, 1898
Equivalent citations: (1898)ILR 20ALL198
JUDGMENT John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.
1. This was a suit for damages based upon an allegation that the defendants wrongfully out and appropriated the plaintiff's crop. The facts of the case, so far as they are material, are as follows:--The principal defendant, namely, Raja Udit Narain Singh, obtained an order or decree from a competent Court of Revenue establishing his title to possession of the land and establishing the fact that the plaintiff had got no title, and, the plaintiff being in possession, the Court of Revenue decreed possession to the Baja and gave him formal possession. At that time a crop of the plaintiff's was growing on the land, and the amin, apparently overlooking the fact that Section 42 of the Rent Act (Act No. XII of 1881) did not apply to the case, allowed the plaintiff to continue in such necessary possession as would be requisite for gathering and removing the crop: possession of the land was given to the Raja. The plaintiff gathered and removed the crop, and thereafter brought a suit in a Civil Court for a declaration that he was a tenant of the Raja of the land in question holding occupancy rights. That suit did not lie in the Civil Court, which had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The suit was one which came under Section 95 of Act No. XII of 1881. It was liable to be defeated also on another ground, namely, that, if the plaintiff was entitled, he was not in possession and could have sought consequential relief. For some reason the suit was undefended, probably through an oversight, or through indifference as to what the Civil Court might do in a suit which was not within its jurisdiction. This plaintiff got a decree declaring that he was entitled as an occupancy tenant. The Civil Court, having granted him a declaration of title in a suit in which it had no jurisdiction to interfere, next proceeded to execute its declaratory decree by giving this plaintiff possession, overlooking the fact that the only execution of a declaratory decree is for such costs as may be decreed and may not have been paid. This plaintiff alleges that he sowed the crop in respect of which this action is brought. If he sowed the crop, he sowed it as a trespasser. He had got neither title nor lawful possession. The first Court dismissed this suit. The Court of first appeal set aside the decree of the first Court, and made an order under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From that order this appeal has been brought. The plaintiff had no cause of action. If in fact the plaintiff did sow the crop in question, which is disputed, he did so at his own risk and as a trespasser. We allow this appeal, and, setting aside the order of the Court of first appeal, we dismiss the appeal to that Court and restore the order of the first Court. The appellant here will have his costs of this appeal and of the appeal to the Court of first appeal.