DRUG PAL SINGH Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's application in revision from an order passed by the V Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad dated 21-7-1980, deciding the issue of the maintainability of the suit in the civil court, against the applicant.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed a suit for mesne profits. They alleged that the parties had one-third share each in the Bhumidhari land involved in the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant's father had realised a sum of Rs. 18,000/-odd by way of sale proceeds of guava fruits of the groves in question, and had also realised other sums by way of profits arising out of the land in dispute. The plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and odd as their share of the sale proceeds aforesaid, and further sums by way of their share of the profits from the land in dispute. Since the defendant's father did not give them their share of profits, the plaintiffs filed the instant suit for the recovery of the same. The defendant's father having died, the suit was filed against the defendant-applicant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant urged that in pith and substance the suit was for partition, and without a declaration of the shares of the parties, it could not be decreed, hence the suit was not maintainable in civil court, and further that it could be treated as a suit for possession of agricultural holding and for compensation, which also would be maintainable in a revenue court. Reliance was placed on Bageshar Misir v. Mahabir Shukut, 1935 AWR 625 (HC); Mt. Ananti v. Chhannu, AIR 1930 Alld. 193 ; Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shanker, 1968 AWR 731 ; Mt. Ram Kuer v Iqbal Narain Singh, AIR 1947 Alld. 92 ; Chhedi v. Smt. Indrapati, AIR 1972 Alld. 446 ; Jag Narain Mallah v. Bhagauti Prasad Pandey, 1957 AWR 771 ; Dwarka v. Jwala Singh, 1958 AWR 21 ; and Himmat Singh v. Channoo Lai, 1964 AWR 283. Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shanker, 1968 AWR 731 laid down that the main relief sought in the suit had to be seen to determine the jurisdiction of the court. Mt. Ram Kuer v. Iqbal Narain Singh, AIR 1947 Alld. 92 was also to the same effect. Dwarka v. Jwala Singh, 1958 AWR 21 and Jag Narain Mallah v. Bhogauti Prasad Pandey, 1957 AWR 771 laid emphasis on the real cause of action as determinative of the question of jurisdiction. Mt. Ananti v. Chharmu, AIR 1930 Alld. 193 and Bageshar Misiv v. Mahabir Shukul, 1935 AWR 625 (HC) were suits filed for possession and mesne profits. In Chhedi v. Smt. Indrapati, AIR 1972 Alld. 446, principles for determining the jurisdiction of the court were laid down as follows :-