1959 (4) TMI 32 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper presentation of the appeal by legal representatives.
2. Applicability of res judicata.
3. Jurisdiction of the Revenue Court.
4. Abatement of suits under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules.
5. Determination of appellants as hereditary tenants.
6. Award of damages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper Presentation of the Appeal by Legal Representatives:
The appellants contended that the appeal by the legal representatives of Jahana was properly presented. However, this issue was not addressed as the decision on other points rendered it moot.

2. Applicability of Res Judicata:
The appellants argued that even if the appeal had abated, the decision of the Additional Collector would not operate as res judicata in the connected appeals. This issue was also not addressed for the same reason as above.

3. Jurisdiction of the Revenue Court:
The appellants claimed that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. The court analyzed the scheme of the U.P. Tenancy Act, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on Revenue Courts for disputes between landlords and tenants concerning agricultural holdings. It was held that the suits were maintainable in the Revenue Court under Section 180 of the Act, which deals with ejectment of persons occupying land without title.

4. Abatement of Suits under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules:
The appellants argued that the suits had abated under Rule 5 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The court examined the relevant rules, both original and amended, and concluded that the suits could not be abated under Rule 5 of the amended Rules. The suits were restarted under the old Rules, and no stay order was made under the new Rules. The lands were found to be Sir lands, and the appellants were trespassers who had not acquired any rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

5. Determination of Appellants as Hereditary Tenants:
The appellants contended that the finding that they were not hereditary tenants was vitiated by errors of law. The court noted that the three lower courts had concurrently held that the appellants were not hereditary tenants based on oral and documentary evidence. The court rejected the appellants' arguments, including the presumption of genuineness of a certified copy of the khatauni, the burden of proof, and the alleged exclusion of material evidence. The court upheld the concurrent finding that the appellants were not hereditary tenants.

6. Award of Damages:
The appellants challenged the award of damages, arguing that no witness deposed regarding damages and no argument was advanced by the respondent's counsel. The court found that the issue of damages was not raised in the first or second appellate courts, nor in the statement of the case filed in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the appellants were not allowed to raise this plea at this stage.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the suits were maintainable in the Revenue Court, the appellants were not hereditary tenants, and the suits could not be abated under the amended Rules. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld, and the award of damages was not open to challenge at this stage. The appeals were dismissed with costs.