INDRA PAL Vs. JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed suit No. 79 of 1985 in the court of Munsif, Haveli against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with the allegations that the petitioners are recorded Bhumidhars of the plot in dispute, and are in possession of the same, and the defendant No. 1 is trying to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession. THE true copy of the plaint is annexure-1 to the writ petition. THE trial court by its border dated 6-9-1991 held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as it was barred by section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, who by his order dated 25-10- 1991 dismissed the revision. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit was triable by the civil court and not by the revenue court. I am not inclined to agree with this contention. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs' allegation was that the property in dispute came to them through a family settlement dated 15-8-77, Hence, according to the plaint allegations they became the owners of the property in dispute from 15-8-1977. The plaintiffs have also alleged in the plaint that the defendant No. 2 has sold the property in dispute to defendant No. 1. Hence the plaintiffs has prayed for cancellation of the sale-deed and for injunction.

(3.) THE decision of the Supreme Court in Bimillah's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable. THEre the facts were that the plaintiff; who was the owner of the disputed property, executed a document appointing the defendants 1 to 3 as her agent to manage the estate. THE plaintiff claimed that she was a pardanasheen lady, and taking advantage of her ignorance the defendants inserted an unauthorised clause in the instrument of agency empowering the defendants to sell the property, and in this way the defendants fraudulently sold the property. This case is clearly distinguishable because the defendants who sold the property were not claiming to be owners but agents of the plaintiff.