DWARKA AND OTHERS Vs. JAWALA SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants filed a suit in a civil court for a declaration that the contents of certain paragraphs in the plaint of suit No. 387/47 instituted by them along with others had been written fraudulently and were not binding upon them and that the compromise decree - passed in the suit was null and void as against them. They claimed to be tenants of certain plots in dispute. In suit No. 387 they arrived at a compromise by which they surrendered their claim over tenancy rights over some of them. Now they want that tenancy rights over them should remain intact and that the compromise decree be held not binding upon them. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, who declared that the Appellants were tenants over the plots in dispute and that they were not bound by the contents of the paragraphs of the plaint in the suit No. 387/47 and the compromise arrived at in it. An appeal was preferred against the decree and the lower appellate court held that the suit was barred by S. 242 UP Tenancy Act because the Appellants were entitled to a relief from a revenue court on the cause of action on which they sued in the civil court. But it also went into the merits and held that Appellants were not entitled to any decree. Consequently it allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

(2.) In this appeal it was contended on behalf of the Appellants that when the lower appellate court held that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction, it should have ordered the plaint to be returned to them for presentation to a proper court. I see no substance in this contention and am satisfied that the lower appellate court rightly dismissed the suit on the ground that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to try it.

(3.) The Appellants sought the relief of getting rid of the effect of the compromise decree in the earlier suit No. 387 on the ground that it was obtained by fraud; this relief could not be granted to them by a revenue court. Consequently the suit as filed by them could not be filed before a revenue court and if they went to it with the plaint it would have at once returned it for presentation to a civil court.