Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Beni Madho Singh vs Prag on 19 November, 1948
In Beni Madho Singh v. Prag, 1949 A. L. J. 24 : A. I. R. (36) 1919 ALL. 510) the plaintiff alleged that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant had mortgaged with possession the plots in dispute to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title, that under the mortgage the plaintiff's predecessor-in title and also the plaintiff held possession over the plots aforesaid: and that after the expiry of the period allowed by law for redemption of the mortgage the plaintiff held possession over the plots as tenant on behalf of the landlord until July 1946 when he was illegally and without his consent dispossessed by the defendant. On those allegations he sued for ejectment of the defendant under Section 9, Specific) Relief Act. One of us held that the suit was maintainable under Section 180, Tenancy Act. The reason was clear. As already observed, jurisdiction of the Court has to be judged from the allegations made in the plaint and not merely by the fact that the plaint is headed as being under a certain section of an enactment. Upon the allegations made in the plaint in that case, the suit was clearly maintainable under Section 180 because the plaintiff had alleged his title to the land. It was observed in that case:
Lal Bahadur Singh vs Surajpal Singh And Anr. on 21 February, 1946
In Lal Bahadur Singh v. Surajpal Singh, 1946 A. L. J. 201 : (A. I. R. (33) 1946 ALL. 486) the allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff had been in possession of certain plots of land within six months and had been dispossessed of them by the defendant. No allegations in respect of the plaintiff's title were made. The suit clearly lay in the civil Court.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
1