DASAIYAN AND OTHERS Vs. KEDAR NATH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three revisions filed by defendants under Sec. 115 of the C. P. Code in which the same question of law is involved, hence they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. These revisions are directed against an order of the learned District Judge of Banda by which he allowed the three connected appeals against the orders of the learned Civil Judge of Banda in the three suits and set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge in those suits directing the plaints to be returned for presentation to the revenue court. The learned Civil Judge had held that the suits were cognizable by revenue court and the civil court had no jurisdiction. The learned District Judge on appeal held that the suits were cognizable by the civil courts and not by the revenue court.

(2.) The allegations in the plaint in the three suits were similar. In each of the suit Gram Samaj Ainjhi was defendant No. 1 along with certain other persons who were also impleaded as defendants and in whose favour the Gram Samaj is alleged to have executed Pattas. The plaintiffs in each of the three suits had claimed a declaration and possession of the lands involved in the suit. The allegations were that in 1946 the land in suit was settled with the plaintiffs after 8th day of Aug., 1946; that they acquired hereditary rights in those lands under the U.P. Tenancy Act; that after the abolition of Zamindari under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act they acquired Sirdari rights and became Sirdars; that Gram Samaj of Ainjhi wrongly claiming the land in suit to be customary common pasture land filed application under Sec. 212-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and obtained an order on 31st March 1958 for ejectment from the land from the Assistant Collector, I Class; that in pursuance of that order the plaintiff was ejected; that after the ejectment the Gram Samaj Ainjhi executed Pattas in favour of certain persons which was illegal. The relief claimed in the suits were that (a) it may be declared that the land in suit was not a customary pasture land at the time or at any time before when the land was settled with the plaintiff after the eighth day of Aug. 1946 and the plaintiff was not liable to be ejected in pursuance of the order under Sec. 212-A of U.P. Act I of 1951 and that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 31st March 1958 was illegal and ineffective; (b) that if it is found that the plaintiff has been dispossessed, then a decree for possession be passed and the plaintiff be restored to possession of the land in suit; (c) that the various Pattas executed by the Gram Samaj in favour of the defendants be cancelled; (d) that cost be awarded to the plaintiff and (e) that the plaintiff be granted such other further relief may be deemed fit.

(3.) On behalf of the defendants, inter aria, it was pleaded that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned Additional Civil Judge, in whose court the suits were filed, framed a preliminary issue in each of the suit to the effect whether the suit was cognizable by the court. By the consent of the parties the suits were consolidated for hearing en the preliminary issue. The learned Civil Judge held that the suits in effect were suits for declaration of Sirdari rights and for possession of Sirdari land and, therefore, were triable by a revenue court and not by a civil court. Accordingly the learned Civil Judge ordered the plaints to be returned for presentation to the proper court. Against the orders of the learned Civil Judge, separate appeals were preferred in each of the suit which appeals were consolidated and heard together by the learned District Judge who disagreeing with the learned Civil Judge held that the suits were suits which fell under Cl. 7 of Sec. 212-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and as there was no provision for the institution of such a suit under that sub-clause in schedule II of Z.A. and L.R. Act, the suits were cognizable by civil court. The learned District Judge accordingly set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge and sent the suits back to the lower court for being tried an accordance with law. As already observed above, these three revisions have been filed against the orders of the learned District Judge passed in the three appeals. It is to be noted that the Gram Samaj Ainjhi, who was the main defendant in the three suits, has not filed the above revisions but some of the other defendants who were impleaded in each of the suits and in whose favour Gram Samaj had executed Pattas, have come up in revision before this Court.