BACHCHU LAL Vs. RAM SAJIWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Defendant against the judgment dated. 16-9-1991 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Allahabad, whereby, he has remanded the case to the Munsif, Allahabad for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law after setting aside the judgment and decree of the Munsif.

(2.) The Munsif, Allahabad seems to have dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff-Respondents by deciding issue. No. 5, The said issue was, about the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. The Trial Court was of the view that under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit which was triable by the authorities under the Provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act of 1953, therefore, suit was dismissed. On appeal District Judge set aside the judgment of the Munsif and held otherwise. The learned Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that the suit was barred by the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act, therefore, it could not be remanded for re-trial to the Munsif. It is contended that at the time of the institution of the suit and at the time of passing of the judgment notification under Section 4(2) of the Consolidation Act, had been issued and the area where the land is situate had come within the purview of the said Act, therefore, Civil Court's jurisdiction to try any suit with regard to the land had ceased. The Consolidation operations were started therefore, under Section 5 (2) certain consequences would have ensused with regard to the pending proceedings in any Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Section 5 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which reads as under.

(3.) He has also relied on Smt. Barsatiya v. District Judge, Ghazipur,1984 AllLJ 490. This Court ha,s helfl that pending suit for injunction abates because suit for injunction also fnvdlves declaration of rights and title for the land in suit, therefore, Section 5(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act would bar the trial of the suit in Civil Court. Reliance is also placed on Smt. Dulari Devi v. Janardaa Singh,1990 RevDec 193, A suit to set aside the sale deed was also held to be barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In Sita Ram v. Chhota Bhondey, 1990 RevDec 493 . It was held that a suit in which Respondents had claimed interest in the land lying in area covered by notification under Section 4 (2) was held to be covered by Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred by the Act.