AMARNATH Vs. SHYAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants and Sri Prem Chand Saroj, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant.

(2.) This is plaintiff-appellants' second appeal from judgment and decree dated 15/7/2020 of the District Judge, Bhadohi at Gyanpur dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2020 whereby affirming the original decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadohi at Gyanpur dismissing the Original Suit No. 76 of 2017.

(3.) Plaintiff-appellants had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent-defendant which was registered as Original Suit No. 76 of 2017 [Amarnath and another Vs. Shyamlal] in the Court of Junior Division, Bhadohi on the ground that defendant was interfering in the cultivation and possession of the plaintiff-appellants. Respondent-defendant had contested the suit and filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint therein. Trial Court framed eight issues and issue no. 5 was framed to the effect, whether a suit is barred by Sec. 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Trial Court while deciding the issue no. 5 vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2019 held that as the plaintiff had claimed the relief for permanent injunction, and the question of title was also involved and no relief for declaration has been sought, in view of the said fact as the land in dispute is agricultural land, the suit was barred by Sec. 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, thus, it was not cognizable by Civil Court and same was dismissed, accordingly.