1964 BLR ( C C ) 340

ဆရာကြီးဦးမြသင်ကြားပို့ချချက်များ

“သီးခြားသက်သာခွင့်အက်ဥပဒေပုဒ်မ၈အရစွဲဆိုသောအမှုများ”

1964 BLR ( C C ) 340 

MAUNG CHA PAW (APPELLANT)

                       V.

KO MAUNG TIN (RESPONDENT). *

Before U San Maung, J.

မောင်ချာပေါအမှုတွင်-

“The suit, now under consideration, is not one for possession based on title either absolute or possessory.”

ဟုပြဆိုထားရာ၊မရွှေ့မပြောင်းနိုင်သောပစ္စည်းလက်ရောက်ရလိုကြောင်း”အကြွင်းမဲ့ဆိုင်ရေးဆိုင်ခွင့်”သို့မဟုတ်”လက်ရှိထားပိုင်ခွင့်”အပေါ်အခြေပြု၍စွဲဆိုသောအမှုနှစ်မျိုးနှစ်စားရှိကြောင်း၊ဖော်ညွှန်းပြဆိုသောစီရင်ထုံးဖြစ်သည်။

တရားဝန်ကြီးဦးစံမောင်က၊စီရင်ထုံးစာမျက်နှာ၃၄၃နှင့်၃၄၄တွင်အောက်ပါအတိုင်းသုံးသပ်ဆုံးဖြတ်သည်-

“I have given careful consideration to this case and in my opinion the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed on a more fundamental ground than that relied upon by the learned Township Judge or the learned Additional District Judge.

The suit, now under consideration, is not one for possession based on title either absolute or possessory. 

It is in fact a suit for declaration that he being in possession of the suit land should have been assessed to land revenue in respect of it. 

Such a suit would be barred by section 41 of the Lower Burma Towns and Village Lands Act, read with section 23 thereof.

Under section 55 of the Land and Revenue Act the question as to who is liable to pay revenue in respect of any land, is one within the jurisdiction of the revenue officer concerned and section 56 enacts that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to consider this matter.

The principle underlying these two sections are applicable to the case now under consideration.

In the result, I hold that the plaintiff-appellant's suit should be dismissed as not maintainable in law. 

The appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs; Advocate's fees being assessed at three Gold Mohurs.”