RAM KUMAR Vs. GOPALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by Ram Kumar plaintiff. He filed a suit in the court of the Munsif for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession over plots Nos. 324 and 325/1, situated in village Ladar, Pargana and Tahsil Maudha, district Hamirpur.

(2.) THE plaint allegations were that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed plots since before the abolition of Zamindari, and these plots had formed the agricultural Chak of 30 Bighas of the plaintiff but by mistake the Lekhpal had wrongly entered the disputed plots in the revenue papers as Sirdari of some other persons, and later on account of the fictitious and incorrect entries in the revenue papers the name of Gopali defendant no. 1 came to be recorded ; that on account of the incorrect entries the defendant threatened to dispossess the plaintiff necessitating the filing of the suit for permanent injunction after giving notice to the Gram Sabha and the State of Uttar Pradesh. THEse allegations were denied by the defendant Gopali who asserted that the plaintiff was never in possession of the disputed plots and that these plots formed the joint tenancy of Har Bishal and Sheo Bishal, and under the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act the disputed plots were declared 'surplus land' of the aforesaid tenants, and thereafter these disputed plots vested in the Government which executed a Patta in favour of the defendant Gopali, and by virtue of this Patta he (Gopali) has been in possession and is the Sirdar of the disputed plots. It was also contended that the plaintiff did not raise any objection in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and. therefore the disputed plots were declared 'surplus land', and the order of the Prescribed Authority in that regard became final and conclusive and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(3.) IN this second appeal by the plaintiff, it has been vehemently contended by Sri R. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, firstly, that on the finding that on the plaint allegations the plaintiff could get his relief from the revenue court and the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the court below ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before the revenue court and not to have dismissed the plaintiff's suit ; and secondly, that the plaintiff not being a party to the proceedings taken under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act there was no bar to the plaintiff instituting the present suit in the civil court for issue of permanent injunction. IN support of the second contention learned counsel has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case Upper Ganges Sugar Mills, Ltd. v. Civil Judge, Bijnor, AIR 1970 Allahabad 130. Sri R. Pandey has been heard at length in support of the above contentions.