AMIR MOHAMMED Vs. GAFOOR AHMED KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(a), CPC against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Baran dated 10 -11 -1975 in civil suit No. 10/75, by which it was held that the suit is triable by the revenue court and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff appellant for presenting the same in proper court.

(2.) THE plantiff appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed in the court of Additional District Judge, Baran regarding the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 279, measuring 10 Bighas and IS Biswas, which belonged to him and was in his possession. It was further asserted that the defendant -respondent No. 3 Samiran had no right to sale the disputed land in favour of defendant -respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by executing a sale deed in their favour on 22 -4 -1974, which was got registered on 24 -4 -1974. It was prayed that a decree for cancellation of the above mentioned sale deed be passed in favour of the appellant. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents thai suit was with regard to agricultural land, it was triable ay the revenue court. After hearing arguments of both sides, learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 10 -11 -1975 held the suit is not triable by the civil court and the plaint should be returned to the appellant for presentation in proper revenue court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant Shri J.K. Singhi has contended that only relief claimed in the plaint was cancellation of sale deed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, this suit was exclusively triable by a civil court as this relief could not have been granted by a revenue court. He has, therefore, urged that the lower court has seriously etred in holding that even though the relief claimed in the suit is coughed in the manner that it looks like making only a prayer for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondends Nos. I and 2 but the relief, if awarded, would actually amount to grant of declaration that the plaintiff is a Khatedar tenant of the suit land and, therefore, the 3rd defendant had no right to sale the said land in dispute.