Parbati Kumari vs Doman Manjhi and Others

Mohammad Noor, J.—These nine appeals arise out of the same number of suits instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of possession of certain land from the defendants-respondents after a declaration of the plaintiff''s title. The lands involved were portions of plots Nos. 46, 20, 41 and 43 of the village which were recorded as gairmazrua malik. The defence was that the defendants under the special law prevailing in Chota Nagpur brought these lands under their cultivation by the process known in Chota Nagpur as korkar. The Munsif dismissed the suits in respect of plots Nos. 46 and 43, holding that the korkar was complete in respect of the lands situated in these two plots and consequently the defendants, acquired an occupancy right u/s 67, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.

In respect of the lands situated in the other two plots, Nos. 20 and 41, the learned Munsif held that the processes of reclamation had not commenced and therefore he gave the plaintiff a decree. The defendants appealed in each case. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit in respect of the lands of these two plots also. He held on the construction of the commissioner''s report who had gone to the spot and made a local inspection of the lands in question that the processes of reclamation had commenced and in view of the concluding clause of Section 64(3) held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits.

Now the concluding clause of Section 64(3) which was added by the amending Act of 1920 provides that no cultivator who is a tenant or resident of a village shall be evicted from land of that village which he has commenced to convert into korkar otherwise than upon such an application. The application referred to is the application to the Deputy Commissioner by the landlord for the ejectment of the person who has commenced the korkar operation as provided in the earlier part of Section 64(3). Mr. B.C. De who appears for the appellant contends that this provision in Section 64(3) does not take away the jurisdiction of the civil Court. He relies upon various decisions of this Court in which it has been held that Section 139, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, does not bar suits in which the question of title is involved.

In my opinion in this case the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred, not only by the provision of Section 139 (which as has been held in this Court, does not apply to suits based upon title), but also by the concluding portion of Section 64(3) which clearly means that if a person who has commenced korkar is a tenant or a resident of the village when the korkar is being done, he cannot be ejected otherwise than by an application to the Deputy Commissioner. There is one mode and one mode only for ejecting a raiyat or a tenant of the village. In my opinion this construction is not open to any doubt whatsoever and the learned Subordinate Judge has come to a correct conclusion.

Now the only question which remains is this: whether the act which the defendants have been found to have done is a commencement of the korkar within the meaning of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The learned Subordinate Judge has given very good reasons for holding that they are, and the interpretation which he has put upon the report of the commissioner is in my opinion correct. After all, whether the korkar has commenced or not, is a question of fact which has been determined by the learned Subordinate Judge. I see no reason to interfere. The appeals are therefore dismissed with costs. Leave for filing a Letters Patent appeal is asked for which is granted.