Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 11

Civil Procedure Code (v of 19(18)-- ---S.11--Res judicata--Application before Tenancy Authorities for possession of land--Dismissal of, on ground of want of jurisdiction--Subsequent civil suit against tenant for recovery of possession of land--Remanding of case by High Court for hearing by Trial Court with a direction to refer issue regarding tenancy to Tenancy Authorities was not barred by res judicata. AIR 1979 SC 653; AIR 1978 SC 1217; AIR 1971 SC 2228; AIR 1969 SC 439; AIR 1968 SC 1358; AIR 1966 SC 166; AIR 1966 SC 459; AIR 1966 Mys. 154; AIR 1963 SC 385; (1963) 4 ruj. LR 145; AIR 1962 SC 287; (1960) fit Bom. LR 873; AIR 1954 Born. 100; AIR 1954 Born. 107; AIR 1953 Born. 2.11; AIR 1940 PC 105 and AIR 1922 PC 80 ref. S.B. Bhasme for Appellants. Mrs. C.K. Sucharita for Respondents. JUDGMENT SAIKIA, J.--This plaintiffs' appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Second Appeal No.983 of 190( setting aside the judgment of the Courts below and remanding the case to the trial Court from hearing with a direction to refer the issue regarding tenancy to the tenancy authorities. The appellants are the owners of land bearing R.S. Nos. 1442 and 1445, situate at kasba Karvir, within the municipal limits of Kolhapur. The said land was leased out to the father of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on October 12, 1950 for a period of ten years. The appellants had filed Regular Civil Suit No.298 of 1964 against the respondents for possession thereof, mesne profits and for damages. It was averred in the plaint that the appellants had earlier initiated proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as `the Act', and in the said proceedings it was held that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the land inasmuch as only grass grew thereon naturally. It was further averred that on expiry of the period of (case the appellants terminated the tenancy under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and riled the aforementioned suit. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit contending inter alia, that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction inasmuch…