Smt. Laugania vs Chhatrapal And 10 Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1459 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 19
 
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 87 of 2016
 
Appellant :- 		Smt. Laugania
 
Respondent :- 	Chhatrapal And 10 Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :-     Sanjai Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Girish Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. During argument it appeared that the matter may be decided on merits on the basis of admitted facts. Therefore, it is accordingly decided.

2. Admittedly, original owner of disputed agricultural property of plots no. 118 and 102 of village Durjanpur was Baldev, who had died on 1.7.2002 Admittedly a registered will-deed dated 27.6.2002 was executed on behalf of Beldev in favour of three plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 (present appellant Smt. Laugania). It is also admitted that after the death of Baldev name of defendant no.-1 appellant Smt. Laugania was recorded in revenue papers.

3. Then plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No. 233/2013 for permanent injunction claiming their joint possession and right as co-bhumidhar of disputed property with defendant no.-1, on the basis of said registered will executed by Baldev. This suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 9.7.2013 of trial court with finding that after filing of original suit, the plaintiffs had filed suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act for declaration of their rights as co-bhumidhar of disputed property, and since such declaration is necessary for granting relief of permanent injunction, so such declaration being within exclusive jurisdiction of revenue court, the suit is beyond jurisdiction of civil court. On these grounds, trial court had dismissed the original suit.

4. In Civil Appeal No. 55/2013 preferred against the judgment of trial court, the first appellate court had admitted all the above mentioned facts, but gave finding to the effect that plaintiff-appellants have claimed their rights through registered will-deed executed by Baldev, and that entries in revenue records are for the fiscal purposes only, so plaintiffs have co-ownership right in disputed property on basis of said will. With these findings, first appellate court had allowed the appeal and decreed the original suit of plaintiffs.

5. Against the judgment of first appellate court, present Second Appeal has been preferred by defendant Smt. Laugania.

6. During argument, it was admitted by the parties that dispute relates to ownership of agricultural plots no. 102 and 118, and also for declaration of their co-ownership and bhumidhari rights over this land, for which the plaintiff-respondents have already filed a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act in revenue court.

7. There is specific plaint case that the plaintiff had acquired rights over disputed agricultural property as bhumidhar with transferable rights. The basis of claim of his relief sought in plaint if bhumidhari rights acquired by plaintiff-respondent. Therefore, admittedly, the plaint case and relief sought by appellant in his plaint is based on his alleged bhumidhari rights of plaintiff-respondent. The defendants can be restrained from interfering in bhumidhari rights of plaintiff, as prayed in plaint, only if they are declared bhumidhar or their bhumidhari rights are formally recognized by civil court.

8. The suit of plaintiff-respondent has been based on claim of his ownership and bhumidhari rights over disputed agricultural land, for which the plea of bar of suit under Section 331 UPZA & LR Act was taken by defendants.

9. Section- 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 reads as under:

"331. Cognizance of suits, etc under this Act.- (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding an~hing contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (5 of 1908) take cognizance of any suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application:

Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suit, application or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof;

Explanation- If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted."

10. This section provides that no court other than court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in C.P.C., take cognizance of any suit, application or proceedings, mentioned in Column 3 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceedings based on cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. In Schedule II of this Act serial number-34 of Column-3 deals with ''Suit for declaration of rights'; and in front of it in column-4 the name of court of original jurisdiction is given as ''Assistant Collector, 1st Class'.

11. The present case of plaintiff-respondent is based on claim that he is owner and co-bhumidhar of disputed land. Admittedly the name of defendant-appellant are recorded as bhumidhar on disputed land i.e. agricultural 'land' as defined in UPZA & LR Act. Even the alleged relief of permanent injunction regarding disputed land is also based on the relief of declaration of title of disputed agricultural 'land'. Therefore it is explicitly clear that only the court of Assistant Collector has jurisdiction to grant these reliefs, and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit or other proceeding based on cause of action for declaration of ownership rights of such agricultural land. So this finding of first appellate court is erroneous and cannot be upheld that plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction based on recognition of bhumidhari rights which is within exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts.

12. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that they are also in joint possession of disputed property, which should not be disturbed. From above discussion, it is explicitly clear that main relief sought by plaintiff--respondents are based on declaration/ recognition of their alleged right of bhumidhari over disputed agricultural land, but it cannot be granted to him by civil court, and therefore, claim of plaintiff/appellant is barred by Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. So for the sake of argument, even if his possession is accepted, in that case also the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled for the relief claimed.

13. So far the dispute of possession of disputed property, as claimed by both the parties, is concerned, the plaintiff-respondent may approach the revenue court for obtaining required relief which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the real dispute between the parties.

14. It is admitted legal position that the ownership dispute or rights relating to agricultural land can be decided only by revenue court and the jurisdiction of civil court in this regard is barred under Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. For granting relief of permanent injunction regarding such land, which is recorded in name of defendant-appellant, it has to be declared that plaintiff-respondents are co-bhumidhar of this disputed land. Since such declaration of bhumidhari rights cannot be granted by civil court as its jurisdiction is barred and since without such declaration plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, which also involves declaration of such right, therefore, the judgment of first appellate court is found erroneous and perverse. This is admitted fact that defendant is recorded in revenue records as bhumidhar after long litigation in revenue court, and that the plaintiff had already filed suit under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act for declaration of their bhumidhari rights, therefore, judgment of trial court on point of law is found correct, which is confirmed.

15. Accordingly this second appeal is allowed, the erroneous judgment of first appellate court passed in Civil Appeal No. 55/2013 is set aside and the judgment of trial court dismissing the original suit no. 233/2013 is confirmed.

Order Date :- 18.4.2016

SR