HARINARAYAN Vs. FOURTH ADDITIONAL DIST JUDGE AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed Suit No. 1230 of 1986 for permanent injunction against the present respondents, Kamala and others. It was his case that he was the sole owner of certain agricultural plot and was in possession thereof. It was stated that previously he was having only one-third share in the suit property, a second one-third belonged to one Rampat Rai and the rest one-third belonged to the respondent Kamala and his brother Subedar. The plaintiff purchased the share of Rampat through a registered instrument and there had been a family settlement through which Kamala and Subedar transferred their share in the suit property in favour of the petitioner through a written instrument dated 24.12.1971. Subsequently, however, Kamala and Subedar transferred their land to other defendants on the basis of which they were trying to interfere in the land in dispute and that gave the cause of action to the plaintiff-petitioner for permanent injunction. The petitioner asserted that for the Fasli year 1389 khatauni was prepared in his name for certain plots and for the Fasli years 1390 and 1395 khatauni was prepared in his name for some other plots. The defendants, however, denied that title of the petitioner on the suit property. The defendant Kamala also contested the suit and asserted that the plaintiff had not been the bhumidhar for one-third share in the suit property and the suit was really one for a relief for a declaration of his right and title to the extent of that one-third share and only the shape of an injunction suit was given although the real relief was of a declaration of title.

(2.) The trial Judge framed several issues including one touching the jurisdiction of the civil court to take up the matter. The issue was decided by the trial Judge on 1.9.1992 in the affirmative, holding that the civil court had a jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the relief sought for was for permanent Injunction that could have been granted only by the civil court. A revision application, however, was preferred and by an order dated 27.5.1999 the IVth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh, allowed the revision, set aside the order of the trial Judge dated 1.9.1992. This order has given rise to the present writ petition.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the jurisdiction of a Court is to be determined from the allegations made in the plaint and from the reliefs claimed therein. When it was a suit for a permanent injunction, none but the civil court could have taken cognizance of the suit. Moreover, the cause of action had arisen only on account of attempts on the part of the defendants to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was submitted that the revisional court had gone beyond its jurisdiction to take up the question of registration or absence of registration of the alleged family settlement.