KAMLA PRASAD SINGH Vs. RAMNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for injunction and in the alternative for possesion in respect of certain agricultural land. One of the issues raised in the trial Court was whether the Civil Court had any jurisdiction to try the suit. The issue was answered by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff, and the question of jurisdiction was not pressed before the lower appellate Court. Nevertheless the plaintiff's suit had been dismissed on merits on the finding that the plaintiffs are not the sirdars of the land in suit. Having examined the allegations on which the plaintiffs came to Court, it appears to me that they could and should have filed a suit for declaration or in the alternative for possession in the revenue Court and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The real dispute between the parties related to the correctness of the entries in the revenue records and the question whether the plaintiff was the sirdar of the land in suit or that the defendants were the Adhivasis thereof and had later on, by compen sation of law, becomes the sirdars thereof. The nature of disputes was such as could have been approximately decided by the revenue Courts, who alone had jurisdiction in the matter. Nevertheless the suit being for permanent injunction and the question whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction or the Revenue Court had jurisdiction being not free from difficulty, the suit proceed ed in the Civil Court and the parties took the chance of a decision on merits. Learned counsel for the parties in this Court does not dispute that on a correct appraisement of the cause of action, the suit should have been filed in the Revenue Court and not in the Civil Court. The difficulty with which I am faced in this code is that the suit has been pending since the year 1960 and the finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction would necessarily lead to a fresh litigation in the Revenue Court. That cannot be held. The question of jurisdiction was not free from difficulty. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was challenged by the defen dants at the very out-set before the framing of the issues in the case and an issue was struck. In the view that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction it can not be said that the trial of issues between the parties by the Civil Court will not occasion failure of justice for whatever findings are given in this case by the Civil Court could still be challenged by the parties before the Revenue Court on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide any question about sirdari rights and the judgment of Civil Court being without jurisdiction it does not operate res judicata. Furthermore, as held by me in Kishori Lal v. Shambhu Nath (1979 R. D. 37) "in a suit for declaration of rights under the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act the State and the Gaon Sabha are necessary parties and any finding given in their absence may very well be defined by the State. On the other hand a declaratory decree of Revenue Court is given effect as a matter of course by the revenue authorities. Even if a decree for injunction were to be passed in plaintiff's favour, the revenue authorities may or may not give effact to the findings arrived at by the Civil Court. " In view of these facts and circumstances. I am of the view that the suit giving rise to the second appeal merited dismissal on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it and the findings recorded by the two Courts below being findings arrived by a Court having no jurisdiction in the matter they are liable to be set aside. With these observations the dismissal of the suit is maintained and the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. .