Thana Singh vs Shadi

C.S. Tiwana, J.—This second appeal is on behalf of Thana Singh, the plaintiff, in respect of whose suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,592/- this finding was given by the lower appellate Court that the suit could only be filed in a revenue Court. The suit was tried by Sub Judge Third Class, Bhatinda, who by his judgment dated 25th February, 1974, had held that the civil Court had the necessary jurisdiction and had consequently passed a decree for the recovery of the whole amount claimed by the plaintiff. The Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, in his judgment dated 17th May, 1975, took this view that the pleadings of the defendant were such which required the matter in dispute between the parties to be determined by a revenue Court. He took note of proviso (1) to sub-section (3) of section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and for that reason passed an order for the return of the plaint.

The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 11th June, 1972, and was passed upon a bond executed by Shadi defendant whereby it had been claimed that the defendant had obtained a loan of Rs. 1,900/-. A sum of Rs. 400/- out of this amount was not to carry interest but the remaining sum of Rs. 1,500/- was payable with interest to be calculated at the rate of 2 per cent per month. There was then a further recital in the deed showing that the defendant was to obtain 1/14th share in the crops to be jointly cultivated. It is apparent that Thana Singh was the owner of the land and that Shadi had been engaged by him as a siri for the crop year 1970-71. The deed was executed on 11th June, 1970.

In his suit the plaintiff claimed the sum of Rs. 1,900/- as the amount of the loan which had not been repaid. He also claimed Rs. 540/- by way of interest. It had also been claimed by the plaintiff that he had handed over five maunds of wheat for a total consideration of Rs. 52/- and this amount having not been paid back by the defendant the total amount sued for was Rs. 2.592/-.

In para 1 of the written statement the defendant denied that he had obtained any amount by way of loan. He asserted that he obtained a sum of Rs. 900/- as the condition for joiniog as a siri. Further, according to the defendant, he had obtained five maunds of wheat. He then made this grievance that the plaintiff had not rendered any account to him with regard to the produce of the land. This was then the defence raised by the defendant that without rendition of the accounts the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. The dispute between the parties seems to have arisen as the defendant had issued a notice dated 14th June, 1971, for the rendition of accounts. The defendant held out this threat that if the share of the produce was not handed over to him within a specified period he would take further proceedings in a Court of law.

An effort has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent to bring the present case within the ambit of section 77 (3) (k) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. It was said to be a suit by a co-sharer in an estate or holding for a share of the profits thereof or at least for a settlement of accounts. In the suit filed by the plaintiff there was hardly any need for going into accounts between the parties with regard to the produce of the land. The plaintiff only wanted to recover the advance made to a siri before he joined the landlord. The defendant could have some case for urging that his claim should be tried by a revenue Court if he had himself filed any suit for the settlement of accounts with the landlord. The defendant in the written statement never made known as to what amount he was claiming as the share of the amount which he wanted to get adjusted in the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Para 1 of the written statement already referred to above does not even make out a case of set off. The lower appellate Court relied on Cheta v. Bajja AIR 1923 Lah. 452. The holding in that authority was quoted in the judgment itself. It had also been held in the said ruling that if the pleadings raised any matter involving an issue which was necessary to decide and the decision of which would necessitate the encroachment on the jurisdiction of the revenue Court, the whole suit and not just the "matter" is to be referred to the revenue Court for decision. The pleadings in the present case are such which did not enable the trial Court to frame any such issue which required the determination by a revenue Court Even the lower appellate Court failed to frame any such issue which was required to be referred to revenue Court for a decision. The defendant had a separate cause of action for filing a suit for rendition of accounts if he claimed himself to be such a co sharer to which clause (k) of section 77 (3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act could be applied. It is highly doubtful that if the defendant had filed any such suit it would have been cognizable by a revenue Court A siri cannot be said to be a co sharer in an estate or a holding. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of our own High Court reported as Bakhshish Singh v. Kartar Singh (1956) 58 P.L.R. 476. There was a suit by a siri for his share of the produce. The question arose whether the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the holding. The plaintiff was held to be a co sharer on the basis of a remark made by Rattigan J., in Sunder Singh v. Kesar Singh 80 P.R. 1964: 24 P.L.R. 1904. The Division Bench judgment is by Khosla and. Dulat JJ. Khosla J. doubted the correctness of the view taken by his Lordship but it was remarked that there being no decision to the contrary the reasoning adopted by Rattigan J. should be supported. Furthermore, it was said that the suits of the nature like the one being decided could be conveniently tried in the revenue Court. The learned counsel for the appellant in the present case cited AIR 1933 730 (Lahore) which had taken a contrary view and was not noticed in the Division Bench case referred to above. In Rachhnal Singh''s case the suit related to accounts by the son of one co-lessee against the other. It was not held to be a "co-sharer in an estate or holding for settlement of accounts" and the suit was, therefore, not held to be excluded from the cognizance of the civil Court by any provision contained in section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Before a siri can avail of the provisions in clause (k) of section 77 (3) of the Tenancy Act, he has to prove that he is a co-sharer in the land upon which crops were jointly cultivated by him and the owner of the land. Unless he is held to be a co-sharer in the holding he cannot have the dispute settled with regard to rendition of accounts from a revenue Court. ''Holding'' has been defined in the Punjab Revenue Act as meaning a share or portion of an estate held by one landowner or jointly by two or more landowners. Unless a person is a landowner he cannot have any share in a holding Even though the law laid down in Bakhshish Singh''s case by the Division Bench has to be doubted, yet from the peculiar circumstances of this case there is no need to have the matter decided by a Full Bench. There is no such defence of the tenant that his share of the produce of the land should be got adjusted in the amount which he owed to the plaintiff. There is thus no need to go into this matter as to how much was the total produce of the land and what was the share of the defendant. The suit is simply for the recovery of an amount advanced by the plaintiff at the time the defendant was employed as siri. A similar situation arose before this Court at the time of the decision of Civil Revision No. 1080 of 1971 (Jangir Singh v. Maghar Singh) C.R. 1080 of 1971, dated 16th February, 1972 by P.C. Pandit, J. Maghar Singh had engaged Jangir Singh as a siri. A sum of Rs. 500/- and nine maunds of wheat had been advanced by the landlord to the siri. A suit for the recovery of that amount was filed by the land lord. Question arose whether a civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff''s case in that suit was that because the defendant did not stick to the terms of the agreement he was bound to return both the things which he had taken in advance. It was held that the suit was not covered by the provision of section 77(3), second Group (k) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The defendant had taken this plea that he had worked as a siri for about six months and then refused to work afterwards. He was not held entitled to have the suit referred to a revenue Court for adjustment of his share of the produce of the land. I consider the facts of Jangir Singh''s ease to be so similar to the present case that by following the said case it has to be held that it was a civil Court which had the necessary jurisdiction to decide the claim of the appellant.

I set aside this finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaint was required to be returned to a revenue Court. The appeal is accepted and the case is remanded to the lower appellate Court for deciding the other points raised before it on the merits of the case. Parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. Parties through their counsel are directed to make their appearance before the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, on 1st May, 1978.