RAM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. D.J. AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a defendant in Suit No.645 of 1994: Ram Chandra Gupta Vs. Dr. Ram Prakash Gupta. has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the orders passed by the two Courts below rejecting his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint as the suit, according to him, is not cognizable by Civil Court. The said suit has been filed by the contesting respondent no.3 herein for declaration that sale deed executed by the present petitioner on 24th of December,1992 in his favour is valid. Also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. The subject matter of the suit is agricultural land which originally belonged to Smt. Jamuna Devi, the mother of the petitioner. She was recorded in the Revenue record as its tenure holder and after her death, the plaintiff respondent no.3 who is nephew of the deceased Smt. Jamuna Devi, filed an application for mutation of his name before Tehsildar which was initially allowed exparte but the said order was recalled subsequently at the instance of the petitioner. After contest, the Revenue Court ordered that the name of the petitioner be mutated and recorded in the Revenue record in place of Smt. Jamuna Devi, being the son, heir and legal representative of the deceased Smt. Jamuna Devi. A Will allegedly executed by Smt. Jamuna Devi in favour of the plaintiff respondent was set up by him which was not found to be proved in the mutation proceedings. The suit was filed on the allegations that on 24th of Dec., 1992, the present petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff respondent.

(2.) An application being Paper No.17/C was filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as in the mutation proceeding which was litigated up to the Board of Revenue, the alleged Will and sale deed set up by the present plaintiff were found to be forged and fictitious documents. The name of the defendant petitioner having been ordered to be mutated/recorded in the Revenue record, the relief sought for in the suit necessarily requires change/modification in the Revenue record which can appropriately be done only by the Revenue Court and as such, the suit is barred by Sec. 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said application having been rejected by the two Courts below by the impugned orders, the present writ petition is at the instance of the defendant.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the plaintiff respondent, although a counter affidavit had been filed.