Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1) Whether the suit is cognizable by the revenue Courts?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to sue?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is a muafidar? and (5) Whether the suit is barred by Act 23 of 1871?

9. The Court held that the plaintiff as vendee of the assignee of the muafidar was entitled to sue in the revenue Courts under Section 161 coupled with Section 166, Agra Ten. Act. It also held that the suit was not barred by the provisions of Act 23 of 1871. It observed that:

Section 9 of the said Act is quite clear. Had the suit been against Government it would have been quite a different thing.

17. The above exhausts the vital documents produced in this case which directly or indirectly have a bearing upon the questions raised in this appeal.

18. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit upon the grounds that the defendants were recorded in the revenue papers as muafidars (assignees) of the Government revenue and the plaintiffs as their (defendants') sub-muafidars and that the claim of the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title against the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants for recovery of arrears of revenue had been decreed in the year 1914.

20. The decree of the lower appellate Court seems to be quite correct; but the reasoning upon which the decree proceeds is clearly erroneous and cannot be supported. The case before the Privy Council was not one between the assignee of the muafidars and the muafidars. The present plaintiffs were no parties to the suit. The title of the present plaintiffs was not and could not have been litigated in this action. The pronouncement of the Privy Council is no more than this that the civil Court is competent upon fulfillment of certain conditions to take cognizance of a claim in respect of pensions and grants by a Government of money or land revenue where there is or has been a conflict of titles in respect of the same. The power of the revenue Court to adjudicate upon the claim advanced by the transferee of the original assignee under Section 161, Agra Tenancy Act, was not considered either in this case or in Second Appeal No. 425 of 1923. These decisions therefore are no authority for the proposition that the suit like the present is not maintainable in the Court of revenue under Section 161, Land Revenue Act.

21. Section 161 of this Act provides that a muafidar or assignee of revenue may sue for arrears of revenue due to him as such. Section 166 provides that the words... "muafidar or assignee of revenue" in this chapter include also the heirs, legal representatives, executors, administrators and assigns of such persons. The transferee of the original grantee is therefore an assignee within the meaning of Section 161 of the Act. Sch. 4, serial No. 10, indicates the forum in which a suit of this description should be instituted and prescribes that where the value of the claim exceeds Rs. 100 the suit is triable by an Assistant Collector of the First Class and an appeal lies to the civil Court.