HARI SINGH Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree of District Judge Poonch accepting the respondents appeal and remanding the case back to the trial court for disposing of the same on merits. The material facts giving rise to the present controversy lie in a narrow compass which are briefly stated as follows :

(2.) THE respondents brought a suit for possession of some agricultural land against the petitioners on the ground that they on her death had succeeded to its owner Mst. Dayawanti and that the petitioners had forcibly occupied it by manoeuvring to get the mutation of her estate attested in their favour. The suit out of which this revision petition has arisen was instituted on 16 -11 -1972. Some of the petitioners who filed their written statements contested the suit on the grounds that the respondents were not the legal heirs of Mool Singh the pre -deceased husband of Mst. Dayawanti and that the suit was not triable by a civil court under the provisions of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972. The trial court, it appears without framing a specific issue in regard to the jurisdiction of the court, negatived the respondents contention and held that the suit was triable by it. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in revision which was accepted by the High Court which framed an issue and remitted the case back to the trial court for deciding the same after taking evidence on it. The issue read as under : - "Whether the civil courts jurisdiction to settle, decide and deal with the question mentioned in the suit is barred under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, and if so, how ? O. P. D.

(3.) THE parties led evidence on the issue and the trial court on consideration of the same came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It also made an observation that under the personal law of the parties the suit land vested in the respondents. It accordingly returned the plaint for being presented to the proper forum. This order was challenged in appeal by the respondents. The District Judge who heard the appeal reappraised the whole evidence and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were in possession of the suit land as mere tress -passers. He, therefore relying upon two Single Bench decisions of this court viz. Taramani Vs. Thakur Dass, 1973 KLJ 393, and Ahmad Ghasi and others Vs. Mohd Ganai 1976 KLJ 337 came to the conclusion that civil courts jurisdiction to try the suit could not be taken away by the Agrarian Reforms Act and remanded the case back to the trial court for its disposal on merits as already stated. It is this order of the lower appellate court which has been assailed in this revision petition.