# Iqbal Ahmad v. Mohiyuddin

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 276
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-01
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 641 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/iqbal-ahmad-v-mohiyuddin-53902
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for want of
jurisdiction, was justified in adjudicating the
matter on merits, or whether it was legally
bound to return plaint under O. VII R. 10 CPC
for presentation before the court of competent
jurisdiction.

Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - s. 331 - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. 7 R. 10 -
Plaintiff - appellant instituted Original Suit
No. 801 of 2007 before Court of Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagina,
Bijnor, seeking a decree of permanent
injunction and declaration in respect of
property situated in Mauja Rashidpur
Satidas, within the limits of Nagar Palika
Parishad, Nagina, claiming ownership over
99% of said property on the basis of
alleged oral gift (hiba) made first in favour
of his father by other co-sharers, and
thereafter by his father in favour of
plaintiff himself - It was alleged that
defendant's predecessor in collusion with
revenue
officials,
had
fraudulently
procured
mutation
of
his
name
in
Khatauni, thereby depriving the plaintiff
and his predecessors of their rightful
entries - Defendant contested the claim,
asserting his recorded title and continuous
possession for over fifty years - Trial
court, upon appraisal of evidence, held
that plaintiff failed to establish the alleged
oral gifts and revenue entries enjoyed a
presumption
of
correctness,
further
concluding
that
civil
court
lacked
jurisdiction u/s. 331 of Act, 1950 -
Consequently, suit was dismissed, leading
to instant first appeal before High Court.

Held: Plaintiff has sought the relief of
permanent injunction, but his name is not
recorded as tenure holder in revenue records -
He has claimed that defendant and his
predecessors have illegally got recorded their
name in revenue records, whereas, his and his
predecessors name, should have been recorded
in revenue record - It is apparent that plaintiff
has to seek declaration of his title in disputed
land, from the revenue court and without
getting any declaration, relief of injunction
cannot be granted to plaintiff - Further without
correction of revenue entries, plaintiff cannot be
granted any relief and jurisdiction of correction
of revenue entries lies with revenue court, as
such, trial court has not committed any illegality
in holding that plaintiff's suit is barred by
Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, but
trial court has committed legal error in
examining the case on merits - Trial court
should not have examined the case on merits
and simply should have decided the case on
jurisdictional issue - Since the trial court had no
jurisdiction to decide suit, thus, it was also not
vested with legal jurisdiction to examine the
merits of case - Trial court has legally erred in
deciding the suit - It is apparent from the law
laid down by Apex Court in EXL Careers &
Another(infra) that where the court has no
jurisdiction, then plaint has to be returned in
view of provisions of O. 7 R. 10 CPC to enable
the plaintiff to present it before court having
competent jurisdiction - It is also apparent that
court of appeal or revision may also direct, after
setting aside the decree passed in suit, return of
plaint for presenting it before court
of
9 All. Iqbal Ahmad Vs. Mohiyuddin
277
competent jurisdiction - Thus, trial court has
committed legal error in dismissing suit for want
of jurisdiction and not returning the plaint to
plaintiff, to enable him to present it before court
of competent jurisdiction - Accordingly, appeal is
allowed and trial court's judgment and decree
set aside. [Paras 18, 22, 24] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
EXL Careers & Another v. Frankfinn Aviation
Services Private Limited, (2020) 12 SCC 667
(By 3 Judges) - referred to

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950; Code of Civil Procedure,
1908

List of Keywords
First appeal u/s 96 C.P.C.; Permanent injunction;
Declaration of title; Oral gift (hiba); Possession
of gifted

## Text

276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

44. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 276
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 641 of 2025

Iqbal Ahmad ...Appellant
Versus
Mohiyuddin ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
V.K. Agnihotri

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mohd. Arif

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the trial court, after
finding the plaintiff's suit to be barred by
Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for want of
jurisdiction, was justified in adjudicating the
matter on merits, or whether it was legally
bound to return plaint under O. VII R. 10 CPC
for presentation before the court of competent
jurisdiction.

Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - s. 331 - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. 7 R. 10 -
Plaintiff - appellant instituted Original Suit
No. 801 of 2007 before Court of Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagina,
Bijnor, seeking a decree of permanent
injunction and declaration in respect of
property situated in Mauja Rashidpur
Satidas, within the limits of Nagar Palika
Parishad, Nagina, claiming ownership over
99% of said property on the basis of
alleged oral gift (hiba) made first in favour
of his father by other co-sharers, and
thereafter by his father in favour of
plaintiff himself - It was alleged that
defendant's predecessor in collusion with
revenue
officials,
had
fraudulently
procured
mutation
of
his
name
in
Khatauni, thereby depriving the plaintiff
and his predecessors of their rightful
entries - Defendant contested the claim,
asserting his recorded title and continuous
possession for over fifty years - Trial
court, upon appraisal of evidence, held
that plaintiff failed to establish the alleged
oral gifts and revenue entries enjoyed a
presumption
of
correctness,
further
concluding
that
civil
court
lacked
jurisdiction u/s. 331 of Act, 1950 -
Consequently, suit was dismissed, leading
to instant first appeal before High Court.

Held: Plaintiff has sought the relief of
permanent injunction, but his name is not
recorded as tenure holder in revenue records -
He has claimed that defendant and his
predecessors have illegally got recorded their
name in revenue records, whereas, his and his
predecessors name, should have been recorded
in revenue record - It is apparent that plaintiff
has to seek declaration of his title in disputed
land, from the revenue court and without
getting any declaration, relief of injunction
cannot be granted to plaintiff - Further without
correction of revenue entries, plaintiff cannot be
granted any relief and jurisdiction of correction
of revenue entries lies with revenue court, as
such, trial court has not committed any illegality
in holding that plaintiff's suit is barred by
Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, but
trial court has committed legal error in
examining the case on merits - Trial court
should not have examined the case on merits
and simply should have decided the case on
jurisdictional issue - Since the trial court had no
jurisdiction to decide suit, thus, it was also not
vested with legal jurisdiction to examine the
merits of case - Trial court has legally erred in
deciding the suit - It is apparent from the law
laid down by Apex Court in EXL Careers &
Another(infra) that where the court has no
jurisdiction, then plaint has to be returned in
view of provisions of O. 7 R. 10 CPC to enable
the plaintiff to present it before court having
competent jurisdiction - It is also apparent that
court of appeal or revision may also direct, after
setting aside the decree passed in suit, return of
plaint for presenting it before court
of
9 All. Iqbal Ahmad Vs. Mohiyuddin
277
competent jurisdiction - Thus, trial court has
committed legal error in dismissing suit for want
of jurisdiction and not returning the plaint to
plaintiff, to enable him to present it before court
of competent jurisdiction - Accordingly, appeal is
allowed and trial court's judgment and decree
set aside. [Paras 18, 22, 24] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
EXL Careers & Another v. Frankfinn Aviation
Services Private Limited, (2020) 12 SCC 667
(By 3 Judges) - referred to

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950; Code of Civil Procedure,
1908

List of Keywords
First appeal u/s 96 C.P.C.; Permanent injunction;
Declaration of title; Oral gift (hiba); Possession
of gifted property; Owner of 99% of the
property; Mutated / mutation; Revenue records;
Khatauni; Khewat No. 11; Fraudulent and
illegal; Collusion and connivance with revenue
officials; Recorded tenure holder; Revenue
court;
Correction
of
revenue
entries;
Jurisdiction; Barred by Section 331 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950; Illegality; Court of
competent jurisdiction; O. VII R. 10 C.P.C.;
Return of plaint; Setting aside the decree.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal No. -
641 of 2025
From
the
Judgment
and
Decree
dated
13.02.2023 passed by the Court of Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagina Bijnor in
Original Suit No.801 of 2007

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
V.K. Agnihotri

Adv. for the Respondent:
Mohd. Arif

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
plaintiff-appellant
and
defendantrespondent.

2. Appeal is admitted.

3. The instant first appeal under
Section 96 C.P.C. has been filed by the
plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and
decree dated 13.02.2023 passed by the
Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Nagina Bijnor in Original Suit
No.801
of
2007
(Iqbal
Ahmad
vs.
Mohiyuddin), whereby the plaintiff's suit
for the relief of permanent injunction and
declaration has been rejected.

4. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff
filed O.S. No.801 of 2007 against the
defendant in the lower court with the
averments that as per khewat no.11, there is
an orchard in khasra no.165, current
no.165(b) area 1-13-0 in Mauja Rashidpur
Satidas falling within the boundaries of
Nagar Palika Parishad, Nagina, which is
currently
known
as
Mohalla
Pahadi
Darwaja, Nagina, in which Rahmat-ulnisha (plaintiff's paternal grand mother),
Nazar Ahmad, Umar, Saeed Ahmad
(plaintiff's
father),
Batul,
Zafar
Ali,
Mariyam, Akhtari, Mohd. Mehendi, Mohd.
Aslam, Aamna, Kudasia, Umatul Aziza and
Ruqayya were the owners in possession
alongwith defendants' predecessor Zafaryab
Hussain.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that
except Zafaryab Hussain, all other above
named persons, had executed an oral gift
(hiba) at some point, in favour of his father
Saeed Ahmad, which was accepted by him,
alongwith the possession of the gifted
property.

6. According to the plaintiff, after the
acceptance of the above oral gift (hiba), his
father became owner of the 99% of the
above named property, situated in khewat
no.11. It is the case of the plaintiff that his
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
father had orally gifted (hiba), the above
property to him, about 25 years back and he
had accepted the gift, alongwith the
possession of the gifted property.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that
since some share in the disputed property
belonged to the predecessor of the
defendant Zafaryab Hussain, who with the
connivance of the revenue officers had got
mutated his name fraudulently in the
revenue records, whereas, the name of his
predecessors was deliberately left out,
which should have been entered in the
revenue records. The plaintiff has further
averred that on the basis of the above
illegal revenue entry, the predecessor of the
defendant, as well as the defendant, had
illegally tried to usurp the disputed land.
The plaintiff has further averred that the
Khatauni submitted by the defendant, paper
no. 47C in the trial court, is fraudulent and
illegal, because it has been prepared in
collusion and connivance with the revenue
officials, which needs to be corrected by
the Court.

8. When the defendant refused to get
corrected the relevant Khatauni entries,
then the plaintiff has filed the suit in the
lower court with the following reliefs:-

(i) That by decree of permanent
injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff
against the defendant, the defendant be
restrained from interfering in the 99% share
of the plaintiff in Khasara no. 165, current
no. 165 (b) area 1?3?0 Mauja Rashidpur,
Satidas.

(ii) That by decree of the court, it be
declared that the Khatauni paper no.C-47, C48 and C-49 are fraudulent and incorrect, and
consequently, the revenue authorities be
directed to correct the above revenue entries
by recording the ownership of the plaintiff in
99% of the disputed property on the basis of
oral gift (hiba) made in his favour by his
predecessors.

9. It is apparent that the plaintiff has filed
the suit claiming to be the owner of 99% of the
disputed property on the basis of oral gift
(hiba), executed in his favour, by his
predecessors. It is also apparent that the
plaintiff is not the recorded tenure holder, but
he is seeking permanent injunction, which
cannot be granted without seeking any relief of
declaration of title, which can only be granted
by the revenue court.

10. In the trial court, the defendant
resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the
ground that he is the recorded tenure holder
in khewat No. 11 for the last 50 years, which
conclusively proved his title in the disputed
property. It was further averred by him that
the plaintiff has failed to prove when the
disputed property was orally gifted(hiba), in
accordance with law, to his predecessors. The
defendant also averred that the plaintiff has
not been able to prove that the revenue entries
are fraudulent.

11. On the basis of pleadings of the
parties, the trial court framed the following
issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
to get the relief on the basis of plaint
averments?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has got any
cause of action against the defendant?

(iii) Whether the suit is under
valued?

(iii) Whether the court fees paid
is insufficient?
9 All. Iqbal Ahmad Vs. Mohiyuddin
279

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is
entitled to get any relief?

12. In the trial court, the plaintiff Iqbal
Ahmad examined himself as PW1, Abdul
Wahab
as
PW-2,
the
defendant
Mohiyuddin examined himself as DW-1.
Besides
the
above
oral
evidence,
documentary evidence of certified copies of
khewat, khatauni etc. were also filed.

13. The trial court after examining the
case on merits, recorded a specific finding
that the plaintiff has failed to prove, when
the disputed property was orally gifted
(hiba) to his predecessors. The trial court
also concluded that the defendant's name is
entered
in
the
revenue
records
for
sufficiently long duration, which raised a
presumption of correctness of the revenue
entries, which has not been rebutted by the
plaintiff. The trial court also concluded that
plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence,
to prove that the above revenue entries
were fraudulent. The trial court also
concluded that since the matter relates to
correction of revenue entries, which cannot
be granted by the civil court, as such, the
plaintiff's suit is barred by Section 331 of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

14. In view of the above conclusions
arrived at by the trial court, the plaintiff's
suit
was
dismissed
vide
impugned
judgment and decree dated 13.02.2023,
aggrieved against which the plaintiffappellant is in appeal before this Court.

15. Learned counsel for the plaintiffappellant submitted that since the trial court
has concluded that the civil court had no
jurisdiction to decide the suit, which is
barred under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act, 1950, as such, the trial court
should not have examined the matter on
merits and should have returned the plaint
for presentation to the competent court of
jurisdiction, instead of dismissing the suit
on
merits.
Learned
counsel
further
submitted that the appeal be allowed and
the plaint be returned to the plaintiff, for
presentation to the competent court of
jurisdiction.

16. Learned counsel for the defendantrespondent submitted that the judgment of
the trial court is perfectly legal, the
jurisdiction for correction of revenue
entries lies with the revenue court, as such,
the
plaintiff's
suit
was
not
legally
maintainable. With these submissions, it
was submitted that this appeal has no
merits and is liable to be dismissed.

17. I have considered the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

18. It is apparent that the plaintiff has
sought the relief of permanent injunction,
but his name is not recorded as a tenure
holder in the revenue records. The plaintiff
has claimed that the defendant and his
predecessors have illegally got recorded
their name in the revenue records, whereas,
his and his predecessors name, should have
been recorded in the relevant revenue
record. It is apparent that the plaintiff has to
seek declaration of his title in the disputed
land, from the revenue court and without
getting any declaration, the relief of
injunction cannot be granted to the
plaintiff. It is also apparent that without
correction of relevant revenue entries, the
plaintiff cannot be granted any relief and
the jurisdiction of correction of revenue
entries lies with the revenue court, as such,
the trial court has not committed any
illegality in holding that the plaintiff's suit
is barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. &
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
L.R. Act, 1950, but definitely the trial court
has committed legal error in examining the
case on merits. The trial court should not
have examined the case on merits and
simply should have decided the case on the
jurisdictional issue. Since the trial court had
no jurisdiction to decide the suit, as such, it
was also not vested with legal jurisdiction
to examine the merits of the case. To this
extent, the trial court has legally erred in
deciding the suit.

19. Now a question arises if the trial
court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide
the suit, then what was the correct legal
option available to it?

20. Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C., reads as
follows:-

"10. Return of plaint- (1) Subject
to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint
shall at any stage of the suit be returned to
be presented to the Court in which the suit
should have been instituted.

Explanation- For the removal of
doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of
appeal or revision may direct, after setting
aside the decree passed in a suit, the return
of the plaint under this sub-rule.

(2)
Procedure
on
returning
plaint- On returning a plaint, the Judge
shall endorse thereon the date of its
presentation and return, the name of the
party presenting it, and a brief statement of
the reasons for returning it."

21. The Apex Court in the case of
EXL Careers & Another vs. Frankfinn
Aviation Services Private Limited, (2020)
12 SCC 667 ( By 3 Judges) held as
under:-

"15.Modern
Construction
[ONGC v. Modern Construction & Co.,
(2014) 1 SCC 648], referred to the
consistent position in law by reference to
Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass v. E.D. Sassoon
& Co.[ 1929 SCC OnLine PC 3 : (1928-29)
56 IA 128 : AIR 1929 PC 103] , Amar
Chand
Inani
v.
Union
of
India
(1973)1SCC115,
Hanamanthappa
v.
Chandrashekharappa (1997) 9 SCC 688,
Harshad
Chimanlal
Modi
[Harshad
Chimanlal Modi (2) v. DLF Universal Ltd.,
(2006) 1 SCC 364] and after also noticing
Joginder Tuli [Joginder Tuli v. S.L. Bhatia,
(1997) 1 SCC 502], arrived at the
conclusion
as
follows:
(Modern
Construction case , SCC p. 654, para 17)

"17. Thus, in view of the above,
the law on the issue can be summarised to
the effect that if the court where the suit is
instituted, is of the view that it has no
jurisdiction, the plaint is to be returned in
view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10
CPC and the plaintiff can present it before
the court having competent jurisdiction. In
such a factual matrix, the plaintiff is
entitled to exclude the period during which
he prosecuted the case before the court
having no jurisdiction in view of the
provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation
Act, and may also seek adjustment of court
fee paid in that court. However, after
presentation before the court of competent
jurisdiction, the plaint is to be considered
as a fresh plaint and the trial is to be
conducted de novo even if it stood
concluded before the court having no
competence to try the same"

"Joginder Tuli [Joginder Tuli v.
S.L. Bhatia, (1997) 1 SCC 502] was also
noticed in Harshad Chimanlal Modi (2)
[Harshad Chimanlal Modi (2) v. DLF
9 All. Arpit Garg Vs. Ekta Gupta
281
Universal Ltd., (2006) 1 SCC 364] but
distinguished on its own facts."

22. It is apparent from the law laid down
by the Apex Court in EXL Careers &
Another(supra) that where the court has no
jurisdiction, then plaint has to be returned in
view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10
CPC to enable the plaintiff to present it
before
the
court
having
competent
jurisdiction. It is also apparent that the court
of appeal or revision may also direct, after
setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the
return of the plaint for presenting it before the
court of competent jurisdiction. It is clear that
the trial court has committed legal error in
dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction
and not returning the plaint to the plaintiff, to
enable him to present it before the court of
competent jurisdiction.

23. In view of these facts, it will be
appropriate that after setting aside the
impugned judgment and decree, the plaint
is returned to the plaintiff to enable him to
present it before the court of competent
jurisdiction.

24. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed and the impugned judgment and
decree of the trial court in O.S No.801 of
2007 dated 13.02.2023, is set aside.

25. The trial court is directed to return
the original plaint to the plaintiff, in
accordance with law. The parties shall bear
their respective costs.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 281
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

First Appeal No. 706 of 2025

Arpit Garg ...Appellant
Versus
Ekta Gupta ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ashish Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the Family Court erred
in law and on facts in refusing to grant leave u/s
14(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, thereby
dismissing joint application of parties seeking
permission to present a petition for divorce by
mutual consent before the expiry of one year
from the date of marriage, on the ground of
alleged exceptional hardship or depravity.

Headnotes
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - s. 14(1) -
Appellant - husband and respondent -
wife, whose marriage was solemnized on
3rd March 2025, jointly moved application
before Family Court seeking leave to file
petition for divorce by mutual consent
before completion of one year from the
date of marriage, asserting that marriage
had irretrievably broken down and that
exceptional hardship was being suffered
by
appellant
owing
to
pendency
of
criminal
proceedings
instituted
by
respondent, which also hindered his plans
to travel abroad - Family Court, by
judgment
dated
13th
August
2025,
dismissed the said application, holding
that statutory requirement of one year's
duration could not be waived in absence
of
proof
of
exceptional
hardship
or
depravity
-
Aggrieved,
the
appellant
preferred First Appeal contending that
Family Court failed to appreciate the facts
and
law
in
their
true
perspective,
particularly in light of coordinate Bench
judgment in Angad Soni v. Arpita Yadav
(infra), whereas respondent supported
appellant's case, both parties having