Krishna Lal Sarkar vs Nirmala Bala Shil

Mookerjee, J.—The Plaintiff opposite party had filed a suit? for declaration of her title and for ejectment of the Defendants on the ground that the latter were Bargadars under the Plaintiff and on certain other grounds. The defence was that the Plaintiff had no title to the property in dispute, and the Defendants were not Bargadars but had raiyati interest in the same. Various issues had been raised. An application was filed by the Defendants that the learned Munsif before whom the plaint had been filed had no jurisdiction to try the suit as u/s 7 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act of 1950 the disputes between the parties could only be tried by the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board brought into existence under the said Act. The learned Munsif has rejected this plea and the tenants have come up in revision.

u/s 7 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950 only four matters referred to Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (1) of that section can be considered by the Bhag Chas Conciliation Boards. A Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide such questions in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is taken away under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the said Act. The points in issue in the present litigation are (1) whether the Plaintiff has got her title to the property, (2) whether the Defendants are Bargadars or raiyats and (3) whether the Defendants can be ejected from property in suit. The first two are the principal issues which have to be decided and only thereafter will the Court be called upon to consider whether the Defendants can be ejected from the lands in suit. If it be found that the Plaintiff has no title to the property, the suit will have to be dismissed without going into the question as to the status of the Defendants. Even after title is found in favour of the Plaintiff, the nature of the rights of one or the other would depend upon the status of the Defendants. If the Defendants are found to be raiyats as claimed by them, there is no question of any other matter going before the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board. Only after the Court comes to the conclusion that the case as made by the Plaintiff that the Defendants are bhag chasis is true that the question will arise whether the termination of the bargadars will be allowed or not. This will be a question which can be decided only by the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board.

The other matters which have been referred to above about the title of the Plaintiff to the land or the status of the Defendants are not within the jurisdiction of the Board to determine. The suit in its entirety and at this stage cannot, therefore, be thrown out on the ground that the learned Munsif has no jurisdiction.

It was argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the question whether the Munsif has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not must depend upon the reading of the plaint alone. It is contended that the Plaintiff having accepted in the plaint that the Defendants are bargadars, she has herself put the case out of the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsif. This is wholly an erroneous approach. u/s 7 of the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950, certain disputes referred to in Sub-section (1) of that section are brought within the jurisdiction of the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board. A dispute arises only when both the parties have made their representations before the Court and the issues are raised. We have to look into the pleadings to find out what the disputes between the parties are and if all the disputes which arise are within the items mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act the Civil Court cannot entertain such a suit. If, on the other hand, questions of title have to be gone into initially whether, raised by the Plaintiff or by the Defendants, or, if the point in dispute is whether the Defendants are bargadars or not, such questions can be dealt. with not by the Bhag Chas Conciliation Board, but by the Civil Court.

If the Defendants had accepted the Plaintiff''s title and also the allegation of the Plaintiff that the Defendants were bargadars, the position would have been different.

The result, therefore, is that this Rule is discharged with costs, hearing fee one gold mohur.

It has been represented before me by Mr. Ghose that an opportunity may be given to the Defendants to consider whether they would admit the title of the Plaintiff and accept the Plaintiff''s case that the Defendants are bargadars and that, before the trial actually begins. If within one month from the date of the arrival of the Records in the trial Court the Defendants file any application admitting the Plaintiff''s case on the two points mentioned above, the learned Munsif will take that into consideration and come to a decision as to the forum where the remaining points of dispute can be gone into and that in the light of the observations made in this judgment.