Civil jurisdiction and statutory ownership under tenancy law upheld where past-tenancy issue was only incidental to title claim.

The evidence did not establish fraud or misrepresentation in the grant of the lease, so the lease was not invalidated on that ground. The defendants also failed to prove statutory ownership under the tenancy law because the lease was created after the relevant tillers' day and there was no subsisting tenancy when the exemption provision ceased to apply. A past-tenancy plea raised only as an incident of the ownership claim did not oust civil jurisdiction, and no independent tenancy issue required reference to the Mamlatdar. The Civil Court therefore retained jurisdiction, the reference was unwarranted, and the decree for possession was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the defendants had established fraud or misrepresentation in the grant of lease; (ii) whether the defendants had become statutory owners of the suit lands under the tenancy law by reason of tenancy on the relevant dates or by the operation of the amended exemption provision; and (iii) whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred and the issue of tenancy had to be referred to the Mamlatdar under the Act.

Issue (i): whether the defendants had established fraud or misrepresentation in the grant of lease.

Analysis: The evidence did not support the allegation that the Collector had been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or a conspiracy between the defendants and the Collectorate staff. The circumstances relied upon by the High Court, including the documentary record and the absence of supporting testimony from the plaintiff or his guardian, negatived the plea of fraud.

Conclusion: The finding that the lease was not vitiated by fraud was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the defendants had become statutory owners of the suit lands under the tenancy law by reason of tenancy on the relevant dates or by the operation of the amended exemption provision.

Analysis: The lease was held to have been created only on 24 August 1956 and not on 28 July 1956, so the defendants were not tenants on the tillers' day. It was also found that there was no subsisting tenancy when the Court of Wards management ceased, and therefore the first proviso to the amended exemption provision did not confer statutory ownership. The claim of ownership under the statutory scheme therefore failed.

Conclusion: The defendants had not acquired statutory ownership, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred and the issue of tenancy had to be referred to the Mamlatdar under the Act.

Analysis: A plea that the defendants were tenants on past dates, raised only as part of the claim to statutory ownership, did not fall within the exclusive duty of the Mamlatdar to decide whether a person is a tenant under the Act. The exclusion of civil jurisdiction was not to be readily inferred, and the statutory scheme did not bar the Civil Court from deciding whether the defendants had acquired title as statutory owners or whether the Act applied to the lands during the relevant period. Since no independent surviving tenancy issue remained, the reference under Section 85-A was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The Civil Court retained jurisdiction and the reference to the Mamlatdar was improper, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court was set aside, the trial court's decree for possession and consequential reliefs was restored, and the connected appeal by the defendants failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil court is not barred from deciding a past-tenancy question when it arises only as an incidental step in determining a claim to statutory ownership, and the exclusion of civil jurisdiction under the tenancy statute must be clearly expressed or necessarily implied.

---