RAJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. GAURA ALIAS RAM PIARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by the Defendants raises a question about the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit from which this appeal has arisen.

(2.) THE Plaintiff -Respondent sued for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants -Appellants from interfering with the former's possession over certain plots situated in village Sharma, Pargana Barasathi, district Jaunpur. The Plaintiff claimed to be the Bhumidhar or, in the alternative, Sirdar in possession over the plots in question and yet the Defendants were seeking to disturb her possession. Hence the suit. The contesting Defendants, namely, Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4, claimed to be the Bhumidhars in possession over the said plots. The trial court held that the Plaintiff was the Bhumidhar in possession. The suit was held to be within time, but, on the question of the court's jurisdiction, it was held that a declaration of tenancy rights was involved in the suit and, therefore, the Plaintiff ought to have sued for the relief of declaration under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Act I of 1951 in the revenue court. On this finding, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and held that the suit was cognizable by the civil court. The lower appellate court, therefore, set aside the decree of the trial court and decreed the Plaintiff's suit for a permanent injunction, restraining, the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession over the plots in suit.

(3.) IN addition to the aforesaid aspect of the matter, looking to amended Section 331 of the U.P. Act I of 1951 whereby Sub -section (1 -A) was added, it seems to me that the objection to court's jurisdiction should not be allowed to prevail at this stage. Section 331(1 -A) lays down as under: