AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 167 wordsKulwant Sahay, J.—The plaintiff appellant conceded before the learned Subordinate Judge that the defendant was his under-raiyat. The Munsif also found as a fact on a consideration of the evidence that the defendant was an under-raiyat. The learned Munsif decreed the suit on the ground that because the defendant had denied the title of the plaintiff, therefore he had incurred forfeiture. The learned Subordinate Judge has pointed out that a suit to eject a tenant does not lie in the civil Court. Under S. 46(4), Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, the remedy of the plaintiff was by way of an application within three years after the expiration of the period for which the lease was granted, to the Deputy Commissioner to put the plaintiff in possession. The learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that in the circumstances the suit for ejectment against the defendant who was an under-raiyat was not maintainable in the civil Court.
This appeal is dismissed with costs.
Das, J.
I agree.