GANGA AND OTHERS Vs. BUDDHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure by Ganga and 2 others, Defendants, against the order dated 15.7.1963 of the Additional Civil Judge of Gorakhpur, allowing the appeal of Buddhi Ram, Plaintiff, and holding that the present suit was cognizable by the civil Court. The learned Civil Judge thus set aside the order of the Munsif returning the plaint for presentation to a competent court.

(2.) IN the plaint the Plaintiff had claimed himself to be a tenant of the disputed plots, which lie within the municipal limits of Gorakhpur, a lani to which the provisions of the UPZA and LR Act did not apply and which was still governed by the old tenancy law, namely UP Tenancy Act, 1930. His case further was that the Defendants, who had nothing to do with the lani were trying to interfere with his possession. He consequently prayed for a perpetual injunction to restrain them from interfering with his possession. Such a suit would not fall within the scope of Section 59 of the UP Tenancy Act if the Defendants did not hold the land through the land -holder, and hence can be taken cognizance of by the civil court. But when the Defendants put in appearance and filed their written statement, they claimed to be lawful tenants of the land and by implication claimed to hold the land through the landholder. The Munsif framed issues, one of which was whether the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. He recorded the evidence of the parties, but without recording a finding on material questions of fact involved, considered the issue of jurisdiction and decided it against the Plaintiff. The Munsif was of the opinion that the suit was triable by the revenue court, and not by the civil court, and consequently directed the return of the plaint for presentation to a competent court.

(3.) SECTION 242 of the UP Tenancy Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain and decide suits of the nature specified in the Fourth Schedule of the Act. The section also makes it clear that the civil court cannot take cognizance of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. The Plaintiff could be granted relief of a perpetual injunction only if he was entitled to remain in possession of the land. The civil court would thus not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit if a suit for declaration was exclusively cognizable by the revenue court