CHANDRA NATH Vs. MOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed by Additional Civil Judge Aligarh. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he was bhumidhari of plot no, 143 and that the defendant was interfering with his possession and trying to dispossess him forcibly. The suit was contested and the title of the plaintiff was denied. A preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction was framed and the Munsif found that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Civil Judge. The sole question for determination is whether on the allegations in pleadings the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit or not. The jurisdiction of a court and maintainability of a suit is determined on the allegations contained in the plaint. It is necessary to look into the allegations to find out the real cause of action and the nature of the suit. A suit for injunction necessarily involves declaration of rights and no plaintiff can oust the jurisdiction of Civil Court by merely filing a suit for injunction. It appears that the plaintiff executed a sale deed of the land in dispute on 5th June 1966 in favour of the defendants whose names were mutated in the revenue records. There appears to have arisen a dispute regarding the entries made in favour of the defendants and the matter appears to be pending in the Board of Revenue. Be that may this much is clear that the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff was a camouflage to a suit for declaration and possession. The real cause of action was a declaration that the plaintiff was a Bhumidhar of the land in dispute and he may be declared in possession and in case he is out of possession it may be restored to him. The plaintiff camouflaged the relief and sought a permanent injunction with a purpose to oust the jurisdiction of the revenue Court and seek his remedy in the Civil Court. THIS is not permissible in law. There is no doubt that every suit is triable by the Civil Court except otherwise provided. Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms' Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the revenue' court regarding the nature of suits mentioned in it. The suit filed by the plaintiff in my opinion was such that the relief sought by the plaintiff could be granted by the revenue court only. In the circumstances the revision is allowed with costs, the order dated 27-1-1971 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge is set aside and that of the Munsif is restored. With this modification the plaint shall be returned for presentation to the proper Court. Revision allowed.