# Smt. Kushma Devi v. Darshan Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 106
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-12
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 113 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kushma-devi-v-darshan-singh-ors-51770
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Dispute over land possession -
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule
11 (d) - Rejection of Plaint - Where the suit
appears from the statement in the plaint to
be barred by any law, U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 - Section 206 - Jurisdiction of civil
Courts and revenue courts - Jurisdiction of
civil courts is presumed unless explicitly or
implicitly barred by statute - Suit for
injunction can be maintained on possessory
title grounds and is not barred under Section
206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Civil
Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for
injunction if it does not fall under the
prohibited categories listed in the Second and
Third Schedules of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006.(Para 10-12,14, 31-33)

Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for prohibitory
injunction - to restrain defendant-petitioners from
interfering with their possession of disputed land -
defendants contended - suit was barred under
Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code - as the
subject matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Revenue Court - lower courts rejected
contention - dismissed the defendants' application
under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC - Hence
petition. (Paras 2-3, 16-17, 30)

HELD: - For filing a suit simpliciter for
injunction there is no prohibition in any of the
clauses of section 206 of the UP-Revenue Code,

## Text

106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused/petitioner, if not required in any
other offence, be released immediately
from the Jail.

Original records be given back to
learned A.G.A.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 106
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 113 of 2024
(Civil)

Smt. Kushma Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Darshan Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vidyadhar Yadav, Sri Vidya Dhar Yadav,
Sri Satya Man Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:

(A) Civil Law - Dispute over land possession -
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule
11 (d) - Rejection of Plaint - Where the suit
appears from the statement in the plaint to
be barred by any law, U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 - Section 206 - Jurisdiction of civil
Courts and revenue courts - Jurisdiction of
civil courts is presumed unless explicitly or
implicitly barred by statute - Suit for
injunction can be maintained on possessory
title grounds and is not barred under Section
206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - Civil
Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for
injunction if it does not fall under the
prohibited categories listed in the Second and
Third Schedules of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006.(Para 10-12,14, 31-33)

Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for prohibitory
injunction - to restrain defendant-petitioners from
interfering with their possession of disputed land -
defendants contended - suit was barred under
Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code - as the
subject matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Revenue Court - lower courts rejected
contention - dismissed the defendants' application
under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC - Hence
petition. (Paras 2-3, 16-17, 30)

HELD: - For filing a suit simpliciter for
injunction there is no prohibition in any of the
clauses of section 206 of the UP-Revenue Code,
2006. Jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a
suit for injunction is neither expressly barred nor
by implication. Courts below were right in
holding that suit will not be barred by provisions
of Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code and
have committed no illegality in dismissing the
application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule
11 C.P.C.(Para 32 -34)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Secy. of St. Vs Mask & Co., A.I.R. 1940 PC
105

2. Abdul Waheed Khan Vs Bhawani & ors., 1966
(SC) 1718

3. St. of T.N. Vs Ramalinga Samigal Madam,
A.I.R. 1986 (SC) 794,

4. Nagri Pracharini Sabha & anr. Vs Vth Addl.
Dist. & Sessions Judge, Varanasi & ors., 1991
Supp (2) SCC 36

5. Kamla Prasad & ors. Vs Sri Krishna Kant
Pathak & ors., 2007(4) SCC 213

6. Rajeshwar Gupta & anr. Vs Smt. Gauri Devi &
ors., 2017 (134) RD 34

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Niagam, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed for following relief:
4 All. Smt. Kushma Devi Vs. Darshan Singh & Ors.
107

"I. Issue/Pass an order setting
aside
Impugned
Judgment/Order
and
Formal Order dated 16.08.2023 and
21.08.2023 passed in civil Revision No.3 of
2021, "Kushma Devi Vs Darshan Singh
(Dead) and Others" by Addl. District and
Session Judge, Court No.1 Farrukhabad,
arising out of order dated 15.01.2021 and
Formal Order dated 25.01.2021 passed
by
Learned
Civil
Judge
(J.D.)
Kayamganj; Farrukhabad in O.S. No.225
of 2018, "Darshan Singh (Dead) and
Others Vs Jabar Singh and others"

II. Issue/Pass an order allowing
Application 32C-2 dated 04.01.2019, of
the petitioner field under Order-VII,
Rule-11(d) of C.P.C. and to dismiss the
above mentioned suit with cost, as is
barred by Sec.206 (2) A and Serial No.15
& 16 of second Schedule of U.P. Revenue
Code 2006."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
plaintiff-respondent instituted suit for
prohibitory injunction being Suit No. 225
of 2018 (Darshan Singh and others Vs.
Javar Singh) restraining the defendantpetitioners from interfering with their
possession over the land in dispute. The
defendant-petitioners filed an application
in the suit for rejecting plaint under Order
7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C., contending therein
that the suit is barred by Section 206 of
the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 read with
Schedule 2 entry 15 and 16 of the
Schedule. The aforesaid application filed
by the defendant-petitioners has been
rejected by the trial court vide order dated
25.01.2021. The revision No. 3 of 2021
filed by the defendant-petitioner against
the order dated 25.01.2021 has also been
dismissed by order dated 16.08.2023
passed by Additional District and Sessions
Judge Court No. 1, Farrukhabad. Hence the
present petition.

4. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that in the revenue
records
the
name
of
plaintiff
and
defendants are recorded as co-tenure
holders as Bhumidhars and all the gata
number being minjumla, which has not
been
partitioned
and
therefore,
the
jurisdiction is with the revenue court and
the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006.

5. Before examining the contention,
it will be useful to look into the statutory
provisions.

6. Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 provides for jurisdiction of
Civil and Revenue Courts and is quoted
as under:-

" Jurisdiction of civil Courts
and revenue courts

(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any law for the time being in
force, but subject to the provisions of this
Code, no Civil Court shall entertain any
suit, application or proceeding to obtain
a decision or order on any matter which
the State Government, the Board, any
Revenue Court or revenue Officer is, by
or under this Code, empowered to
determine, decide or dispose of.

(2) Without prejudice to the
generality of the provisions of sub-section

(1),
and
save
as
otherwise
expressly provided by or under this Code-

(a) no Civil Court shall exercise
jurisdiction over any of the matters
specified in the Second Schedule; and

(b) no Court other than the
revenue Court or the revenue officer
specified in column 3 of the Third Schedule
shall entertain any suit, application or
proceeding specified in column 2 thereof.
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in this Code, an objection that a
Court or officer mentioned in sub-section
(2)(b) had or had no jurisdiction with
respect
to
any
suit,
application
or
proceeding, shall not be entertained by any
appellate, revisional or executing Court,
unless the objection was taken before the
Court or officer of the first instance, at he
earliest opportunity, and in all cases where
issues are settled at or before such
settlement, and unless there has been a
consequent failure of justice."

7. Schedule 2 of the U.P Revenue
Code, 2006 provides for 16 matters which
are excluded from the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court. Schedule 2 of the U.P Revenue
Code, 2006 is quoted as under:

SECOND SCHEDULE

[See Section 206(2)(a)]
SI.
No.
Matters excluded from the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court

1.
Any question regarding the demarcation of
boundaries or fixing of boundary marks.
2.
Any claim to question a decision determining
abadi made by the Collector.
3.
Any claim to have any entry made in any
revenue records or to have any such entry
omitted, amended or substituted.
4.
Any question regarding the assessment,
remission or suspension of land revenue or
rent.
5.
Any claim connected with or arising out of the
collection by the State Government or the
enforcement by such Government of any
process for the recovery of land revenue or any
sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue
under this Code or any other law for the time
being in force.
6.
Any claim against the vesting of any property
in the State Government, Gram Panchayat or
other local authority under this Code.
7.
Any question relating to the levy or imposition
of a fine, cost, expense, charge, penalty or
compensation under this Code.
8.
Any question regarding reinstatement of a
Bhumidhar or asami wrongfully ejected or
dispossessed from any land.
9.
Any claim to compel the performance of any
duty imposed by this Code on any revenue
officer appointed under this Code.
10.
Any question, relating to division, creation,
amalgamation, abolition or readjustment of
revenue areas and Lekhpal's circles under
Chapter II.
*11.
Any question relating to the allotment of land
referred to in Section 64 or Section 125 or
cancellation of such allotment.
12.
Any claim to question a direction issued by the
Collector under section 71.
13.
Any claim to question the delivery of
possession over any land and part thereof
referred to in Section 124, or the eviction of
any person under Section 134 or Section 201.]
14.
Any claim to question the validity of any order
made by the State Government under Chapter
XI.
15.
Any claim regarding possession over any land.
16.
Any claim to establish the rights of a co-tenure
holder in respect of any land.

*Substituted by Section 187 of U.P.
Act No.4 of 2016,

8. Third schedule of the U.P Revenue
Code, 2006 provides for description of the
suit application or proceeding, Court or
officer of original jurisdiction, first appeal
and second appeal provided under the Act.
Third schedule of the Code is quoted as
under:-

Third Schedule
Sect
ion
Description
of
suit
application
or
proceedings
Court
or
Officer
of
original
jurisdiction

First
Appeal

Second
Appeal

1

2
3
4
5
24
Boundary
and
boundary
marks
SubDivisional
Officer
Commi
ssioner
---
35
Mutation
Cases
Tahsildar
SubDivisio
nal
Officer
1[***]
54,
56,
57
Disputes
relating to
trees
Collector
Commi
ssioner
---
67
Eviction of
illegal
occupier of
Gram
Panchayat
2[Assistant
Collector]
3[Colle
ctor]
---
4 All. Smt. Kushma Devi Vs. Darshan Singh & Ors.
109
82(2
)(c)
Suit
for
ejectment
by
a
Bhumidhar
against the
person
in
possession
of any land
on the basis
of
a
contract or
lease
SubDivisional
Officer
Commi
ssioner
Board
85(1
)
Suit
for
ejectment
by
Gram
Panchayat
against
a
Bhumidhar
with
nontransferable
rights
Do
Do
Do
85(2
)
Suit
for
ejectment
by a landholder
against
an
asami
Do
Do
Do
96(2
)
Suit
for
partition by
a
disabled
co-sharer
Do
Do
Do
116
Suit
for
division of
a holding
Do
Do
Do
131(
1)
Suit
for
ejectment
of an asami
Do
Do
Do
131(
4)
Suit
for
recovery of
arrears
or
rent against
an asami
4[SubDivisional
Officer]
Collect
or
Nil
133
Suit
for
injunction,
compensati
on etc.
Do
Do
Do
134
Suit
for
ejectment
against
a
person
occupying
land
without
title or for
damages or
for both
SubDivisional
Officer
Commi
ssioner
Board
137(
1)
Suit
for
possession,
compensati
on
or
injunction
Do
Do
Do
139(
1)
Application
for fixation
of rent
Tahsildar
SubDiviso
nal
Officer
Nil
141(
1)
Application
for
commutatio
n of rent
SubDivisional
Officer
Collect
or
Nil
144
Suit
for
declaration
by
Bhumidhar
or asami
Do
Commi
ssioner
Board
145
Suit
for
declaration
by
Gram
Panchayat
Do
Do
Do
151(
1)
Suit by a
Governmen
t lessee for
ejectment
or
for
damages or
both
Do
Do
Do

9. Section 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure enables the civil court to try all
suits of civil nature excepting suits of
which
cognizance
is
barred
either
specifically or impliedly. A litigant having
a
grievance
of
civil
nature
has,
independently of any statue, has a right to
institute a suit in a civil court unless its
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.

10. In Secretary of State Vs. Mask
and Company A.I.R. 1940 PC 105, Privy
Council has observed that it is settled law
that exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court
is not to be readily inferred, but that such
exclusion
must
either
be
explicitly
expressed or clearly implied.

11. The Supreme Court in case of
Abdul Waheed Khan Vs. Bhawani and
others reported in 1966 (SC) 1718 has
held in paragraph no. 9 as under:

" Under s. 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, a civil court can entertain a suit
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of a civil nature except a suit of which its
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred. It is settled principle that it is for
the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction
of a civil court to establish his contention.
It is also equally well settled that a statute
ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must
be strictly construed."

In case of Dhulabhai etc. Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. reported in
1969 SC(78) in paragraph no. 32 has
summarized the position as under:-

" 32. Neither of the two cases of
Firm of Illuri Subayya(1) or Kamla
Mills(2) can be said to run counter to the
series of cases earlier noticed. The result of
this
inquiry
into
the
diverse
views
expressed in this Court may be stated as
follows :-

(1) Where the statute gives a
finality to the orders of the special
tribunals the Civil Courts' jurisdiction must
be held to be excluded if there is adequate
remedy to do what the Civil Courts would
normally do in a suit. Such provision,
however, does not exclude those cases
where the provisions of the particular Act
have not been complied with or the
statutory
tribunal
has
not acted
in
conformity with the fundamental principles
of judicial procedure.

(2) Where there is an express bar
of the jurisdiction of the court, an
examination of the scheme of the particular
Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency
of the remedies provided may be relevant
but
is
not
decisive
to
sustain
the
jurisdiction of the civil court.

Where
there
is
no
express
exclusion the examination of the remedies
and the scheme of the particular Act to find
out the intendment becomes necessary and
the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In
the latter case it is necessary to see if the
statute creates a special right or a liability
and provides for the determination of the
right or liability and further lays down that
all ques- tions about the said right and
liability shall be determined by the
tribunals so constituted, and whether
remedies normally associated with actions
in Civil Courts are prescribed by the said
statute or not.

(3)..........

(4)..........

(5)...........

(6)...........

(7)
An
exclusion
of
the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily
to be inferred unless the conditions above
set down apply."

12. The Supreme Court in case of
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ramalinga
Samigal Madam reported in A.I.R. 1986
(SC) 794, in paragraph no. 14 has held as
under:-

"14. Thirdly, having regard to
the principle stated by this Court while
enunciating
the
first
proposition
in
Dhulabhai's case (supra) it is clear that
even where the statute has given finality to
the orders of the special tribunal the civil
Court's jurisdiction can be regarded as
having been excluded if there is adequate
remedy to do what the civil Court would
normally do in a suit. In other words, even
where finality is accorded to the orders
passed by the special tribunal one will have
to see whether such special tribunal has
powers to grant reliefs which Civil Court
would normally grant in a suit and if the
answer is in the negative it would be
difficult to imply or infer exclusion of civil
Court's jurisdiction."

13. Again in case of Nagri
Pracharini Sabha and another Vs. Vth
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
4 All. Smt. Kushma Devi Vs. Darshan Singh & Ors.
111
Varanasi and others reported in 1991
Supp (2) SCC 36 in paragraph no. 2 and 3
of the judgment has held as under:

" 2. A litigant having a grievance
of a civil nature has, independently of
any statue, a right to institute a suit in the
civil court unless its cognizance is either
expressly
or
impliedly
barred.
The
position is well settled that exclusion of
jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be
readily inferred and such exclusion must
be either express or implied.

3. Reliance has been placed by
Mr. Mukhoty before us on the ratio of the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court
in K.S. Venkataraman & Company v.
State of Madras, where reference has
been made to the Privy Council case in
Raleigh Investment Company Limited v.
The Governor General in Council. It has
been laid down that the Civil Court's
jurisdiction would be presumed unless
the contrary is indicated. Mr. Mukhoty
has also relied upon two other decisions
being Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and
Others, and Dhulabhai v. The State of
M.P. The legal position thus seems to be
clear and it is not necessary to quote
further authorities."

14. Thus from the case laws as
discussed above, it is clear that normally
there will be a presumption as to the
jurisdiction of the civil court unless the
same is expressly or impliedly barred.

15. Since in the present case, the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 filed
by the petitioner has been dismissed and
as it is settled that for deciding an
application under Order 7 Rule 11, only
the plaint's averments has to be seen.
Except for the plaint's averments, the
averments made in the application filed by
the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 or in
the written statement can be looked into
therefore, it will be useful to see in short
the plaint's averments.

16. The suit was instituted with the
allegation that Bhukhand Khasra No. 352
M/0.142 hectare and Bhukhand Khasra No.
344 M/0.049 hectare which are part of Gata
No. 77 situated at village Katra Rehmat
Khan, the original owner in possession of
the aforesaid khasra numbers was Dinanath
son of Baldev Prasad, Mewaram s/o Mukti,
Jabar Singh, Gajraj singh, Havaldar Singh
and Jahan Singh sons of Masal Singh. In
the aforesaid parcel of land, Dinanath had
half share which he received in inheritance
from his father Baldev. After the death of
Dinanath his half share devolved upon his
sons plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 having 1/4 share
each. The half share of Mukti, after his
death devolved upon Mewa Ram and
Masal Singh having 1/4 share each. After
the death of Mewaram his 1/4 share
devolved upon his son Amar Singh through
his widow Jaldevi and other sons, namely,
Rakesh
Chandra,
Maheshchandra,
Sarveshchandra, Pushpendra Singh and
Nilesh Singh. The 1/4 share of Masal Singh
devolved upon defendant nos. 1 and 2,
Havaldar Singh and Jahan Singh, who have
sold their entire share to one Shareef Khan
s/o Munku Khan and thereafter, nothing
remained in the share of defendant nos. 1
and 2. Later on Sharref Khan sold different
portion to different persons over which
they have raised constructions and in the
present suit the plaintiffs have no dispute
with those purchasers of Shareef Khan.
Over the land in dispute, name of Smt.
Hridavati widow of Sher Singh was
recorded as Bhumidhar and she has
executed a sale deed dated 03.07.1987 of 6
Decimal 24 aire which was registered on
03.08.1987 in favour of plaintiff no. 2.
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. The aforesaid Hridawati executed
another sale deed dated 11.6.1999 of her
entire 1/3 share in Khasra No. 344 M area
0.049 hectare in favour of plaintiff no. 3,
which has been described in the plaint as
letters च, छ, ज, झ and where construction
raised by the plaintiff no. 3 exist. It has also
been stated that towards north of च, छ, ज, झ
which belongs to the plaintiff there are
constructions
of
the
defendant.
The
defendants in the suit wants to illegally
dispossess the plaintiffs from land च, छ, ज, झ
and therefore, the suit was filed for
prohibitory
injunction
restraining
the
defendants
from
interfering
with
the
possession of the plaintiff.

18. From the perusal of provisions of
Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
it is clear that in the first place, Section 206 of
the Code makes a general declaration that no
civil court shall entertain any suit, application
or proceeding to obtain a decision or order on
any matter which the State Government, the
Board, any revenue officer or a revenue court
is empowered to determine, decide or dispose
of under this Code.

19. Then comes Section 206 (2) of the
Code which has been divided in two parts.

i. Clause (a) of the Section
expressly excludes the jurisdiction of civil
court on all matters specified in the Second
Schedule.

ii. Clause (b) of 206 (2) further lays
down that no court other than revenue court
or revenue officer specified in the Third
Schedule shall entertain any suit, application
or proceedings specified in the said
schedule.

20. Section 206 (3) of the Code seeks
to prohibit all appellate, revisional or
executing courts from entertaining the plea
of jurisdiction, unless such plea was taken
before the trial court, at the earliest
opportunity, and unless there was a
consequent failure of justice.

21. Section 206 (2) (a) refers to the
Second Schedule and provides that no
civil court shall have jurisdiction over
any of the 16 matters specified in the said
schedule.

22.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has relied upon Clause 15 and
16 of the Second Schedule and has
contended that the suit is barred by
Section 206 of the Code. Clause 15
relates to any claim regarding possession
over any land and Clause 16 states that
any claim to establish right of co-tenure
holder in respect of any land.

23. From the pleadings as noted
above neither the Clause 15 nor Clause
16 applicable in the present case. As from
the plaint's allegation, it is clear that it
has been contended by the plaintiffrespondents that the defendants in the suit
has no right to the property as they have
already sold their share much before
filing the present suit. So, there is no
question of any claim to establish the
right of a co-tenure holder as stated in
paragraph 16 of the Second Schedule.
The Clause-15 will also not apply for the
reason, the petitioner is claiming an
injunction, restraining the defendantpetitioners in the suit from interfering
with their possession.

24. So far as the proceedings
covered under the Third Schedule do not
include the suit for injunction except for
there is a mention of Section 133 and
137(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, in the
Third Schedule, it has been mentioned that
4 All. Smt. Kushma Devi Vs. Darshan Singh & Ors.
113
the suit for injunction, compensation etc.
(Section 133) and suit for possession,
compensation and injunction (Section 137).

25. Section 133 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 relates to suit for injunction,
compensation etc. Section 133 of the U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted as under:

"133.
Suit
for
injunction,
compensation etc.- The [Gram Panchayat]
or the land-holder may, in lieu of suing for
ejectment of an asami under Section 131,
file a suit in the Court of Sub-Divisional
Officer.

(a) for injunction restraining him
from putting the land to any unauthorised
use or causing any waste or damage to it;

(b) for compensation for such
use, waste or damage; or

(c) for repair of the waste or
damage caused to the land."

26. From the perusal of Section 133 it
is clear that Section 133 contemplates a suit
by the Gram Panchayat or by the landholder for injunction restraining the asami
from putting a land to any unauthorized use
or causing any waste or damage to it
instead of suing for ejectment of asami
under Section 131 of U.P. Revenue Code,
2006

27. Section 133 of the Code will not
apply to the suit simpliciter for injunction
as in the present case.

28. Section 137 provides for remedies
for wrongful ejectment. Section 137 of U.P.
Revenue Code 2006 is quoted as under:-

"137. Remedies for wrongful
ejectment:

(1)
An
asami
ejected
or
apprehending ejectment from or prevented
from obtaining possession of any land
otherwise than in accordance with the
provisions of any law for the time being in
force, may sue the person so ejecting him,
trying to eject him or keeping him out of
possession -

(i) for possession of the [land; or]

(ii)
for
compensation
for
wrongful dispossession; or

(2) When a decree is passed for
compensation for wrongful dispossession
but not possession the compensation
awarded shall be for the whole period
during which the asami was entitled to
remain in possession."

29. Section 137 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 provides only for compensation
and possession in case of asami is ejected
or apprehends ejectment and the provisions
of 137 will clearly not be applicable in the
present case.

30. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the judgement of the Supreme
Court in case of Kamla Prasad and others
versus Sri Krishna Kant Pathak and
others reported in 2007(4) SCC 213. In
case of Kamla Prasad, it has been held by
Apex Court that civil court will have no
jurisdiction to decide the issue of validity
of sale-deeds in respect of an agricultural
land, particularly in view of the case put
forward by the plaintiff that he was not the
sole owner of the property and defendant
nos. 10 to 12, who were proforma
defendants had also right, title and interest
therein. He had also stated in the plaint that
though, in the revenue record, only his
name had appeared but the defendant nos.
10 to 12 have also right in the property.
Supreme Court held that, both the courts
below were right in holding that such
question can be decided by a revenue court
in a suit instituted under Section 229 of
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Supreme Court further
held that, courts below were right in
coming to the conclusion that legality or
otherwise of insertion of names of
purchaser in record of rights and deletion of
name of the plaintiff from such record can
only be decided by revenue court since the
name of purchasers had already been
entered into. Only revenue court can record
a finding whether such action was in
accordance with law or not and it cannot be
decided by the civil court.

31. This court in case of Rajeshwar
Gupta and another Vs. Smt. Gauri Devi
and others reported in 2017 (134) RD 34
has held as under:-

" 14. It is settled law that a suit
for injunction can be maintained also on
the ground of possessory title. A person in
possession over some property can defend
his possession and claim an injunction for
protecting such possession, from the entire
world, except the true owner."

32. From the discussion made above
that it is clear that for filing a suit
simpliciter for injunction there is no
prohibition in any of the clauses of section
206 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006. The
jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a
suit for injunction is neither expressly
barred nor by implication .

33. In my opinion, the courts below
were right in holding that suit will not be
barred by provisions of Section 206 of the
U.P. Revenue Code and have committed no
illegality in dismissing the application of
the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

34. The writ petition lacks in merit
and is therefore, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 114
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3022 of 2024
(Civil)

Rajeev Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Swatantrata Sangram Senani Ashrit
Sangathan Pilibhit & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey, Sri Satish
Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Arpit Agarwal

(A) Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 -
rejection of a plaint if it does not disclose a
cause of action or is barred by law, Order 23
Rule 3A - Bar to suit to set aside a
compromise decree , Specific Relief Act,
1963 - Section 38, Section 41(j) - Perpetual
injunctions and when they can be granted -
Compromise decree - Cause of action -
Locus standi - Supervisory jurisdiction -
Only the plaint averments can be seen at the
time of considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. (Para -13)

(B) Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Order VII Rule 11 - plaint can be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. if the
statements in the plaint itself reveal that the
suit is barred by law or does not disclose a
cause of action - Court must limit itself to
the statements in the plaint without
considering
any
external
evidence
or
written statements. (Para 10, 11, 13, 16)

(C) Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order 23 Rule 3A - Compromise
decree under Order 23 Rule 3A cannot be