HIRA LAL Vs. JAGANNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are appellant. Both Courts have decreed the suit of the plaintiff and defendants are aggrieved.

(2.) TWO contentions are forcefully agitated in the second appeal and those are of law because I cannot make fresh investigation of facts in the second appeal. The suit was for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and two Courts have reached the concurrent finding that the title of the plaintiff was not affected though merely clouded in an illegal revenue -sale. Declaration was, therefore, granted of his title as claimed and decree for possession was also passed holding that the defendants were in illegal occupation of the land as they could not secure any legal right to remain lawfully on the suit land in virtue merely of their alleged purchase of the land in revenue -sale as the sale was illegal, void and without jurisdiction.

(3.) IT is too late to re -state the law that ouster of Civil Court's jurisdiction is not to be readily accepted and law in that regard need not be cited except refering to the supreme dicta pronounced in 1969 in Dhullabhai's case 1969 JLJ 1 (SC). If any order of any authority passed under any law is not merely illegal but is without jurisdiction, it is not necessary for the aggrieved person to pursue remedies contemplated under the relevant enactment; it would be open to him to come to the Civil Court to agitate his civil right which may be a property -right. In the instant case, obviously the very foundation of the right was the land which was owned by the plaintiff, but was put up in the revenue -sale. His title was clouded because of that sale which was not conducted according to procedure contemplated for the same. There is an unassailable finding of the two Courts below that the sale -money was accepted beyond the date specified and that could not be done as that power did not vest in the officer concerned who accepted the money or confirmed the sale.