SHANKAR Vs. RUKMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant is the Plaintiff whereas the Respondents are the Defendants. The original Respondent No. 1 Smt. Bachan Kaur has died during the pendency of this appeal and her name has been deleted from the array of Respondents. The Plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.8.1991, whereby the appeal of the Defendants was allowed and the decree and judgment dated 30.12.1989 of the Sub Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh, District Solan, was set aside by holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the Plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 Code of Civil procedure for presentation before the proper Court. The Sub Judge had decreed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land measuring 8 bighas 12 biswas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 8, 251, 291, 307 min and 308 min as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1981-82 holding him tenant thereof under the Defendants Bachan Kaur and Rukmani.

(2.) The District Judge for holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Chuhniya Devi Vs. Jindu Ram 1991 (1) SimLC 223 .

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we find that the District Judge has wrongly applied the ratio of judgment in Chuhniya Devi Vs. Jindu Ram's case (supra) to the facts and circumstances of the present case. From the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the Plaintiff claimed himself to be in continuous possession of the suit land as tenant for the last 20 years, whereas the Defendants denied his claim and asserted that they are owners in possession. Therefore, admittedly the relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute despite the revenue entries in favour of the Plaintiff and such kind of disputes are triable by the Civil Court.