JANKI PRASAD Vs. NAND KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order dated 22-5-2001, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham, Banda in Appeal No. 62/303 of 1998-99, allowing the same and setting aside the judgment and order, dated 16-6-1999, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant second appeal are that the plaintiff, Thakur Ji Mahraj Virajman Mandir Bazar Manikpur and another instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act for declaration of his rights in respect of the Mandir concerned as Sarvarakar, against the defendants Janki Prasad Tewari etc., inter alia pleading that the plaintiff No. 2 has been in possession of the property in dispute, Plaintiff No. 1 in the capacity of its Sarvarakar, as he has been conducting its Puja, maintenance and security etc. and therefore, he is, in fact, its Sarvarakar in law by virtue of the order, dated 15-1-1952, passed by the SDO concerned and the defendant No. 1 has nothing to do with the same nor is he its Sarvarakar. The cause of action arose when he came to know by perusal of papers that the name of the defendant No. 1 has wrongly and fictitiously been recorded as Sarvarakar. On notice defendant No. 1 Gokul (since deceased and substituted by Janki Prasad etc.) contested the suit, denying the allegation and inter-alia, pleading that since the land revenue of the property in dispute is being paid by him and the plaintiffs are the cunning person of dubious nature, a cock and bull story has been got thatched by him and he is, in fact, its Sarvarakar, legally. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as not maintainable, vide its judgment and order, dated 16-6-1999. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissoner, who has allowed the same, vide his judgment and order, dated 22-5-2001 and therefore, it is against this judgment and order that the instant second appeal has been preferred by Janki Prasad etc. before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record on file. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that it is true that the dispute does not relate to the title to the property in dispute but in respect of its Sarvarakari/managership. The crux of the matter in question is whether or not the jurisdiction for determining such a question lies with the Revenue Court. In this respect, it is the settled principle of law that the jurisdiction for determination of Sarvarakar lies with the Civil Court and no other Court is competent for such determination. This view finds support from the case law, reported in 1974 RD (Suppl.) 113. His Lordship in the reported case, has observed that the question who is the Sarvarakar must be determined by the competent Civil Court and such an entry in favour of Sarvarakar can be made only after such determination'. Here, in the instant case, the learned trial Court has rather very rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding the same as incompetent and not maintainable before it, while the learned Additional Commissioner has, to the contrary, wrongly decided the same holding it to be competent and therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled principle of law, the learned Additional Commissioner was not at all justified in determining the point, at issue, as the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to try the same. On the other hand, the learned trial Court has dealt with the matter, in question, through and through in correct perspective of law and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order, passed by the learned Court of first appeal is liable to be set aside and the instant second appeal very richly deserves to be allowed.