AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Walford, J.—This is a second rent appeal against the decision of the Additional Civil Judge, Sitapur, who heard and decided the appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, Misrikh.
The suit was filed under Sections 127 and 108(2) of the Oudh Rent Act for rent and possession in respect of plot No. 801 measuring 1 acre 10 decimals situate in village Malioli, Tahsil Misrikh. The learned Assistant Collector dismissed the suit on the ground that the Defendant was a grove-holder. The appeal against this order was instituted before the District Judge, Sitapur but instead of it being heard by him he transferred it to the Additional Civil Judge who reversed the decision of the Assistant Collector and decreed the suit of the Plaintiff.
In this appeal inter alia a plea is raised that the learned Additional Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of rent appeals. Under the Oudh Rent Act it is the District Judge and District Judge alone who can hear such appeals. I am of the opinion that this contention must prevail. u/s 119 of the Oudh Rent Act an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order of a Collector or of an Assistant Collector of the first class in a suit of a description mentioned in Clause (2), (5), (9), Sub-clause (a) or (b), (11), (13a), (15), (16), (17) or (18) of Section 108 shall lie (a) to the District Judge, if the value of the suit does not exceed five thousand rupees and (b) to the Chief Court, if the value of the suit exceeds five thousand rupees.
In a Full Bench decision reported in Gaya Prasad v. Kalap Nath (1929) 4 Luck. 539. it was held that where
A District Judge decides a second rent appeal under the provisions of Section 119 of the Oudh Rent Act, it is the final Court of appeal under that section and is in that connection a Court of revenue and not a Civil Court and is not sub ordinate to the Chief Court of Oudh within the meaning of Section 116 Code of Civil Procedure.
From this authority it follows that the District Judge being a Revenue Court he alone must hear appeals under the Oudh Rent Act and he has no authority to delegate his powers to a Civil Judge to dispose of the appeals.
u/s 40 of the Oudh Courts Act IV of 1925 a District Judge has been empowered to transfer to any subordinate Judge under his administrative control any appeals pending before him from the decrees or orders of Munsifs and such Subordinate judge shall hear and dispose of such appeals accordingly. No similar power has been conferred upon the District Judge under the Oudh Rent Act. Consequently the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in the present case.
I therefore set aside the order of the Additional Civil judge and send back the case for hoarding and decision by the District Judge, Sitapur. Costs will follow the result of the appeal.