# Vijay Pal & Ors v. Rajendra Kumar

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 228
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-04-19
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-pal-ors-v-rajendra-kumar-47032
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section
100 - Second Appeal - Civil Suit seeking
mandatory injunction - Maintainability -
Bar u/s 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950,
applicability thereof - No Declaration
under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950, its' effect - Whether jurisdiction lie
in Civil Court or in Revenue Court,
determining factors to decide it - Nonconcurrent finding - Cause of action
determines the jurisdiction of a court. It
means every fact which will be necessary
for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in
the orders to support his right to the
judgment of the court. Therefore, it
follows that in each case the cause of
action of the suit shall have to be strictly
scrutinized to ascertain whether the suit is
solely cognizable by a revenue court or is
impliedly cognizable by a revenue court -
Held, Appellate court has not committed
any illegality in concluding that the suit is
cognizable by revenue court and not by
the civil court. (Para 17, 24 and 32)

B. Practice and Procedure - Civil Suit -
Return of the plaint - Civil suit, held not
maintainable - Appellate court dismissed
the suit and decided the issue on merit itself
instead of returning it - Validity - Held,
after holding that civil court has no
jurisdiction, the only way open was to
return the plaint instead of proceeding to
decide other issues on merits and dismissing
the suit - High Court directed the court
below to return the plaint to the plaintiff for
presenting it before the court of competent
jurisdiction. (Para 33 and 35)
Second Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this case is a classic case of the abuse of
the process of the court. In the present case
a practicing lawyer has deliberately abused
the process of the court. In that process, he
has made a serious attempt to demean an
important
constitutional
office.
The
petitioner ought to have known that the
controversy which he has been raising in
the petition stands concluded half a century
ago and by a Division Bench judgment of
Nagpur High Court in the case of Karkare
(supra) the said case was approved by a
Constitution Bench of this court. The
controversy involved in this case is no
longer res integra. It is unfortunate that
even after such a clear enunciation of the
legal position, a large number of similar
petitions have been filed from time to time
in various High Courts. The petitioner
ought to have refrained from filing such a
frivolous petition.

174. A degree of precision and purity
in presentation is a sine qua non for a
petition filed by a member of the Bar under
the label of public interest litigation. It is
expected from a member of the Bar to at
least carry out the basic research whether
the point raised by him is res integra or
not. The lawyer who files such a petition
cannot plead ignorance."

38. From the perusal of the averments
made in the writ petition all what is brought
to the fore is that the petitioner is raising an
issue regarding award of a contract to the
private-respondent. It cannot be discounted
that the petitioner may have been set up by
the rival group since no credential has been
mentioned nor it is a petition which has
been filed on behalf of any marginalized
section of the society. Any issue which
may be in the realm of a private dispute
between two waring groups cannot be
entertained as a public interest litigation.

39. For the foregoing reasons, this
Court is of the considered view that there is
no element of public interest involved.
Accordingly,
the
petition
cannot
be
entertained as a public interest litigation
and
is
dismissed.
However,
in
the
circumstances, this Court refrains from
imposing any costs.

40. That party shall file computer
generated copy of order downloaded from
the
official
website
of
High
Court
Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a
self attested identity proof of the said
person
(s)
(preferably
Aadhar
Card)
mentioning the mobile number (s) to which
the said Aadhar Card is linked.

41.

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of the computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)06ILR A228
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Second Appeal 542 of 2020

Vijay Pal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Kumar ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Udayan Nandan, Sri Shashi Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Mahesh Sharma, Sri Sharad Sinha, Sri Dinesh
Rai
6 All. Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar
229
A. Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section
100 - Second Appeal - Civil Suit seeking
mandatory injunction - Maintainability -
Bar u/s 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950,
applicability thereof - No Declaration
under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950, its' effect - Whether jurisdiction lie
in Civil Court or in Revenue Court,
determining factors to decide it - Nonconcurrent finding - Cause of action
determines the jurisdiction of a court. It
means every fact which will be necessary
for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in
the orders to support his right to the
judgment of the court. Therefore, it
follows that in each case the cause of
action of the suit shall have to be strictly
scrutinized to ascertain whether the suit is
solely cognizable by a revenue court or is
impliedly cognizable by a revenue court -
Held, Appellate court has not committed
any illegality in concluding that the suit is
cognizable by revenue court and not by
the civil court. (Para 17, 24 and 32)

B. Practice and Procedure - Civil Suit -
Return of the plaint - Civil suit, held not
maintainable - Appellate court dismissed
the suit and decided the issue on merit itself
instead of returning it - Validity - Held,
after holding that civil court has no
jurisdiction, the only way open was to
return the plaint instead of proceeding to
decide other issues on merits and dismissing
the suit - High Court directed the court
below to return the plaint to the plaintiff for
presenting it before the court of competent
jurisdiction. (Para 33 and 35)
Second Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Ram Awalamb & ors. Vs Jata Shankar & ors.;
AIR 1969 Allahabad 526
2. Ram Padarth & ors. Vs II A.D.J. Sultanpur &
ors.; 1989 RD 21
3. Khaderu Ram Teli & ors. Vs Ram Karan Ahir;
1961 ALJ 854
4. Ravi Singhal & ors. Vs Rajeev Goyal & ors.;
2015 (8) ADJ 283
5. Hari Narain Vs 4th A.D.J .Azamgarh; 2000 (1)
AWC 416
6. Kamla Shanker Vs IIIrd A.D.J., Mirzapur;
1998 (3) AWC 1708
7. Baiju Vs Sambhu Saran; 1963 All LJ 1064
8. Ram Padarth & ors. Vs II A.D.J., Sultanpur;
1989 RD 21
9. Khaderu Ram Teli & ors. Vs Ram Karan Ahir;
1961 ALJ 854
10. Hari Narain Vs IVth A.D.J., Azamgarh; 2000
(1) AWC 416
11. Kamla Shanker Vs IIIrd A.D.J., Mirzapur;
1998 (3) AWC 1708
12. Baiju Vs Shambu Saran; 1963 All LJ 1064
13. Ravi Singhal & ors. Vs Rajeev Goyal & ors.;
2015 (8) ADJ 283 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Udayan Nandan,
learned counsel for the appellants and Shri
Dinesh Rai, Advocate holding brief of Shri
Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. The plaintiff-appellants have
preferred
the
present
second
appeal
challenging the judgement and decree dated
2.11.2020 passed by the appellate court
setting aside the judgement dated 24.9.2016
passed by the trial court decreeing the
original suit No. 217 of 2007 (Vijay Pal
and others vs. Rajendra Kumar).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the
plaintiff-appellants instituted original suit No.
217 of 2007 praying for a decree of
mandatory
injunction
restraining
the
defendant-respondent
from
peaceful
interference in his possession over plot No.
387 area 0.265 hectare situated in Village
Aurangabad Ahir Pargana Agauta, Tehsil &
District Bulandshahr. The plaint case was that
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Buddhi Singh was the owner of the plot No.
387 area 2 bigha 10 biswa situated in Village
Aurangabad Ahir Pargana Agauta, Tehsil &
District Bulandshahr. One Ajeet Singh and
Virendra Singh son of Risal Singh, Buddhi
Singh son of Jagat Singh and Jal Singh son of
Meer Singh are the descendants of zamindar
Fatah Chandra. They had instituted original
suit No. 262 of 1991 praying for decree of
declaration that they are the owner and in
possession over plot No. 387 (hereinafter
referred to as 'property in question). Besides
above, Ajeet Singh and another instituted
another suit praying that their names be
recorded in the records in respect of property
in question based on decreed dated 7.9.1993.
The plaintiff-appellants claim that they and
Ajeet Singh belong to one family but Ajeet
Singh without informing the plaintiffappellants got the aforesaid two suits decreed
whereas the plaintiff-appellants are also the
owner and in possession of the property in
question. It is also pleaded that the name of
the
defendant-respondent
has
been
fraudulently recorded in the records. The
defendant-respondent
being
influential
persons are trying to interfere in the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff-appellant which
gave rise to the cause of action for filing the
present suit.

4. The suit was contested by the
defendant-respondent by filing a written
statement denying the allegation of the plaint.
In the additional plea, the defendantrespondent pleaded that the gata No. 387 is a
big plot having an area of 0.632 hectares out
of which 0.367 hectares is recorded in the
name of Ajeet and the name of the defendantrespondent is recorded with respect to 0.265
hectares of the said gata in khasara and
khatauni.
The
defendant-respondent
specifically stated that the name of the
plaintiff-appellants is not recorded in any of
the revenue records. They also pleaded that
the property in question is agricultural land
and as there is no declaration under Section
143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the competent
authority, consequently, the suit is barred by
Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The
defendant-respondent also pleaded that the
property in question has been allotted to him
by
Gaon
Sabha
after
following
due
procedure.

5. The plaintiff-appellants filed a
replication stating therein that no declaration
under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act is required as the Abadi on the land in
question is old. Therefore, the suit is not
barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R.Act.

6. The defendant-appellants filed an
additional written statement contending
inter-alia that in a suit for injunction, the
declaration of rights of the plaintiffappellants is also involved. It is further
pleaded that the name of the plaintiffappellants is not recorded in the revenue
record. Consequently, the suit is not
maintainable being barred by Section 331
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

7. On the basis of pleading, the trial
court has framed as many as 11 issues
which read as under:-

"1- D;k oknhx.k oknxr lEifRr [ksr la0 387
jdcbZ 0-265 gS0 ds ekfyd] dkfct o nk[khy gS vkSj
mDr Hkwfe ij oknhx.k dh vkcknh ,] ch] lh] Mh
dk;e gS \ ;fn gkW rks izHkko \

2- D;k izfroknh la[;k 02 dk uke oknxr uEcj
387 ij xyr fdrkor o QthZ #i ls ntZ gqvk gS \
;fn gkW rks izHkko \

3- D;k ewyokn la[;k 262@91 dk orZeku okn
Ikj dksbZ izHkko gS \

4- D;k oknhx.k dks dksbZ okn dkj.k izkIr ugh
gS \

5- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k x;k gS \

6- D;k iznRr U;k;ky; 'kqYd de gS \
6 All. Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar
231

7- D;k oknxr lEifRr ij /kkjk 143 o 331 ;w0
ih0 tSM0 ,0 ,DV dk izHkko gS vkSj U;k;ky; dks okn
lquus ,oa fu.khZr djus dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugh gS \

8- D;k okn esa vko';d i{kdkj u cuk;s tkus
dk nks"k gS \

9- D;k oknhx.k us oknxr lEifRr dh fooj.k
lgh izdkj ugha fn;k gS] tSlk fd vfrfjDr izfrokn
i= 66-,&1 esa dFku fd;k x;k gS \

10& vuqrks"k \

11& D;k oknhx.k dk okn vkns'k 07 fu;e 11
lh0 ih0 lh0 ds izkfo/kkuksa ls ckf/kr gS \"

8. The trial court decided the issue
Nos. 1 to 3 and 9 jointly. In deciding the
said issue, the trial court considered the
plaint of original suit No. 262 of 1991 to
conclude that the reading of the plaint of
original suit No. 262 of 1991 reveals that
Ajeet Singh has stated in the plaint that
ancestors of Ajeet Singh etc. and others
planted trees on the plot in question which
explains that besides Ajeet Singh, there
were several other members in the family,
and the evidence filed by the plaintiffappellants points that the reference of other
persons made by Ajeet Singh in the plaint
of original suit No. 262 of 1991 was in
respect of plaintiff-appellants. Accordingly,
the trial court held that the defendantrespondent would not get any benefit if the
name of the plaintiff-appellants is not
recorded in the revenue record. The trial
court further held that the plaintiffappellants proved his ownership over the
property in question. The trial court,
thereafter, proceeded to consider other
evidence on record and held that the
plaintiff-appellants are in possession of the
property in question.

9. The trial court while deciding issue
No. 7 regarding maintainability of the suit
held that the right of the plaintiff-appellants
concerning peaceful possession over the
property in question will not extinguish
only for the reason that no declaration
under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
has been obtained. The trial court further
held that the plaintiff-appellants have
prayed
for
a
decree
of
mandatory
injunction
restraining
the
defendantrespondent from peaceful interference in
the property in question, therefore, the suit
is cognizable by the civil court and is not
barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act.

10. Feeling aggrieved by the order of
the trial court, the defendant-respondent
preferred civil appeal No. 278 of 2016
before the Additional District Judge, Fast
Track Court No. 4, Bulandshahr. The
appellate court noticed that the name of the
plaintiff-appellants are not recorded in any
revenue record and the finding of the trial
court in respect of ownership is perverse as
no evidence was led by the plaintiffappellants to prove his ownership. The
appellate court further considered various
pronouncement of this Court as to when the
suit in respect of agriculture land is
maintainable
in
civil
court.
After
appreciating the facts of the case and law,
the
appellate
court
concluded
that
mandatory injunction can be granted only
after the decree for declaration of title in
respect of the property in question is
granted
to
the
plaintiff-appellant.
Accordingly, it held that the suit is not
maintainable before the civil court and is
cognizable by revenue court. Consequently,
the appellate court set aside the judgement
and order of the trial court on the ground
that the suit is barred by Section 331 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. and dismissed the
suit.

11. Challenging the aforesaid order,
learned counsel for the appellants has
raised the following two questions which
according to him are the substantial
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
question of law which warrants an answer
from this Court under Section 100 of
C.P.C.; (i). whether the appellate court has
erred in law in holding that the suit is not
maintainable by the civil court and is
barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, (ii). when once the lower appellate
court has found that the suit is not
maintainable before the civil court, whether
it was justified in dismissing the suit
instead of returning the plaint to the
plaintiff-appellants to present it before the
appropriate court.

12. In support of question of law No.
1, counsel for the appellants has submitted
that from the relief claimed in the suit, it is
evident that the plaintiff-appellants have
prayed
for
a
decree
of
mandatory
injunction restraining the respondents from
interfering in peaceful possession of the
plaintiff-appellants over the property in
question. Since the suit is only for a decree
of mandatory injunction, therefore, the suit
is cognizable by the civil court and is not
barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act. He submits that the appellate
court has committed a manifest error of law
in recording a finding that since the name
of the plaintiff-appellants is not recorded in
revenue record, therefore, the plaintiffappellants will have to obtain a decree for
declaration which can only be granted by
the revenue court, hence, the suit is barred
by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. In
support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the following judgments of
this Court :

(i) Ram Awalamb and others Vs.
Jata Shankar and others, AIR 1969
Allahabad 526

(ii) Ram Padarth and others Vs.
Second Additional D.J. Sultanpur and
others, 1989 RD 21

(iii) Khaderu Ram Teli and others
Vs. Ram Karan Ahir, 1961 ALJ 854.

13. In respect of the second question
raised by him, he has placed reliance upon
the judgement of this Court in Ravi
Singhal and others Vs. Rajeev Goyal and
others, 2015 (8) ADJ 283.

14. Per contra, the counsel for the
respondent contended that it is admitted on
record that the name of the plaintiffappellants are not recorded in the revenue
record, therefore, relief of mandatory
injunction can be granted only when the
plaintiff seeks decree for declaration of title
in
respect
of
property
in
question.
Therefore, the suit involves decree for
declaration of title which relief can be
granted by the revenue court. Accordingly,
he submits that the suit is not maintainable
before the civil court and the appellate
court has rightly dismissed the suit. In
support of his contention, he has placed
reliance upon the following judgements:-

(i) Hari Narain Vs. 4th ADJ
Azamgarh, 2000 (1) AWC 416.

(ii)
Kamla
Shanker
Vs.
IIIrd
Additional District Judge, Mirzapur,
1998 (3) AWC 1708.

15. He further contends that the Full
Bench of this Court in Ram Awalamb
(supra) does not come in aid to the
plaintiff-appellants since the judgement of
this Court in Baiju Vs. Sambhu Saran
1963 All LJ 1064 squarely covers the
present case which has been noticed by the
Full Bench in paragraph No. 73 of the
judgement and the Full Bench has not
overruled the judgment of Baiju (Supra)
of this court, therefore, the appellate court
has rightly held the suit is not maintainable
by the civil court. He further submits that
6 All. Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar
233
once the appellate court has held that the
suit is not cognizable by the civil court, it
has rightly set aside the order of the trial
court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffappellants.

16. I have heard the counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

17. To determine the question of
jurisdiction in respect of maintainability of
the suit, the Full Bench judgement of this
Court in the case of Ram Awalamb
(supra)
held
that
cause
of
action
determines the jurisdiction of a court. The
cause of action means every fact which will
be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
traversed, in the orders to support his right
to the judgment of the court. Therefore, it
follows that in each case the cause of action
of the suit shall have to be strictly
scrutinized to ascertain whether the suit is
solely cognizable by a revenue court or is
impliedly cognizable by a revenue court.

18. The Full Bench in paragraph No.
50 after considering the Section 331 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has elaborated when
the jurisdiction of civil court is barred. The
relevant portion of paragraph No. 50 is
extracted herein below:-

"50......Thus the jurisdiction of a civil
court shall be barred in respect of suits
based on a cause of action for any of the
reliefs

(a) mentioned in column 4 of Schedule
II as being cognizable by revenue court, or

(b) if on the same cause of action any
relief could be obtained by means of any
suit or application mentioned in column 4
of Schedule II of the Act, the relief asked
for from the civil court may or may not be
identical to that which the revenue court
would have granted. In other words, (a)
above relates to the class of cases where the
jurisdiction of civil court is specifically
barred. Under Clause (b) falls that class of
cases where the jurisdiction of the civil
court is impliedly barred."

19. Paragraph No. 57 of the
judgement of Full Bench explained when a
suit is cognizable by revenue court.
Paragraph No. 57 of the judgement is
extracted herein below:-

"57. Where in a suit, from a perusal
only of the reliefs claimed, one or more of
them are ostensibly cognizable only by civil
court and at least one relief is cognizable
only by the revenue court, further questions
which arise are whether all the reliefs are
based on the same cause of action and, if
so, (a) whether the main relief asked for on
the basis of that cause of action is such as
can be granted only by a revenue court, or
(b) whether any real or substantial relief
(though it may not be identical with that
claimed by the plaintiff) could be granted
by the revenue court. There can be no
doubt that in all cases contemplated under
(a) and (b) above the jurisdiction shall vest
in the revenue court and not in the civil
court. In all other cases of a civil nature
the jurisdiction must vest in the civil court."

20. Paragraph No. 62 of the
judgement is also relevant in the context of
the present case and is accordingly
reproduced herein below:-

"62. The case law in this Court on this
point might be classified under the following
two heads:--

(a)
Where
several
reliefs
closely
connected with each other can be claimed on
the basis of the cause of action set forth in the
plaint it has to be examined which of them is
the main relief and which others are ancillary
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reliefs. If upon a consideration of facts
constituting the cause of action the main
relief is such which can be granted by the
civil court the suit will be cognizable in the
civil court which will proceed to grant the
ancillary reliefs also. On the other hand if the
main relief is specifically cognizable by a
revenue court only but ancillary reliefs may
be such as could be granted by the civil court
the matter was cognizable only by a revenue
court.

(b) The pith and substance of the
allegation made in the plaint constituting the
cause of action must be scrutinized in order
to determine whether or not if on the same
cause of action any adequate or satisfactory
alternative remedy could be available to the
plaintiff in the revenue court. If the answer to
the scrutiny be in the affirmative, then the suit
brought in the civil court must fail regardless
of the consideration that in respect of the
reliefs actually claimed the suit was on the
face of it cognizable by a civil court."

21. From the reading of paragraph No.
62 of the judgement, it is clear that the true
nature of the allegation made in the plaint
constituting the cause of action must be
evaluated to determine whether the plaintiff
has any adequate or satisfactory alternative
remedy on the same cause of action in the
revenue court. If the answer is in the
affirmative, then the suit is cognizable by the
revenue court and it is immaterial that the suit
in respect of reliefs claimed on the face of it
is cognizable by the civil court.

22. Paragraph No. 73 of the judgement
of Ram Awalamb (supra) is also relevant in
the present case and is being extracted herein
below:-

"73. The case of Baiju v. Shambhu
Saran. 1963 All LJ 1064 decided by a
Division Bench of this Court was for
injunction based on the allegations that the
plaintiff was a khudkasht holder but the
defendant had got his name entered in the
revenue papers and was interfering with
his possession. The defendant claimed to be
the tenant in possession. The lower
appellate court granted the decree of
injunction. The second appeal filed before
the High Court was allowed on the ground
that the civil court had no jurisdiction to
decide the case because upon the facts of
the case it was clear that the plaintiff must
seek a declaration as to his title and,
therefore, the suit was one in which relief
could be granted by the revenue court."

23. Paragraph No. 76 of the
judgement of Ram Awalamb (supra)
explicates the points for consideration for
determining the jurisdiction of the court for
entertaining the suit. Paragraph No. 76 of
the judgement is extracted herein below:-

"76. The main point for consideration
In all cases where on a definite cause of
action two reliefs can be claimed is which
of the two reliefs is the main relief and
which relief or other reliefs are ancillary
reliefs.
Where
from
facts
and
circumstances of the case the relief for
demolition and injunction is the main relief
there could be no reason why the
jurisdiction of the civil court should be
barred On the other hand if it could be said
that the main relief that is to say, the real
and substantial relief, could on that cause
of action be of possession only then the suit
will definitely lie in the revenue court. In
our opinion it is difficult to lay down any
hard and fast rule that where the suit is
brought against a trespasser the only relief
which the plaintiff should claim as an
effective relief is that of possession and he
need not try to obtain an injunction order
and get the constructions made by the
6 All. Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar
235
trespasser demolished. The revenue courts
have not. been empowered to grant the
reliefs of injunction and demolition and in
case the defendant refuses to take away the
materials from the land in dispute after the
decree for possession has been passed
against him the main object of the plaintiff
would be frustrated. A civil court will,
therefore, have the power to entertain the
suit where the. main relief sought by the
plaintiff
is
that
of
injunction
and
demolition, a relief which could be granted
by the civil court only. The relief of
possession will be merely ancillary relief
which the civil court could grant after
having taken cognizance of the suit for
injunction and demolition. We respectfully
agree with the view expressed by Dayal
and Seth, JJ. in the case of 1966 All LJ
1084, (AIR 1967 All 358) that once the suit
is maintainable for the main relief in the
civil court then there is no bar for the civil
court to grant all possible reliefs flowing
from the same cause of action. We,
however, with great respect, differ from the
view taken by the Division Bench in the
case of 1965 All LJ 1137 that whenever a
suit is for demolition and possession
against a trespasser it must always be held
that the main relief was that of possession.
We are of the view that the determination
of the question as to which out of the
several reliefs arising from the same cause
of action is the main relief will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case."

24. The judgement of the Full Court
in Ram Awalamb (supra) in pith and
substance explains what the court should
consider in determining the question of
jurisdiction. It also defines the cause of
action which means that bundle of essential
facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove
before he can succeed. Consequently, it
follows that to ascertain the jurisdiction of
the court, the court must strictly scrutinize
the cause of action to determine whether
the suit is cognizable by a revenue court or
is impliedly cognizable only by a revenue
court, or is cognizable by a civil court.

25. The other judgements Ram
Padarth and others vs. Second Addl.
D.J., Sultanpur, 1989 RD 21 and
Khaderu Ram Teli and others Vs. Ram
Karan Ahir, 1961 ALJ 854 on which
emphasis has been laid by counsel for the
appellants,
also
reiterates
the
same
proposition.

26. Now this Court considers the
judgement relied upon by counsel for the
respondent on the issue of maintainability
of a suit before the civil court. In Hari
Narain Vs. IVth Additional District
Judge, Azamgarh, 2000 (1) AWC 416,
this Court has held that where the title of
the plaintiff is disputed and the reading of
the plaint also discloses so. In such an
event, the plaintiff must allege how he
acquired the right and interest in the
property before he could pray for a
permanent injunction which could be
established by declaration of the right
claimed by the plaintiff, and once the court
comes to this conclusion, the irresistible
inference would be that the suit was really
in the nature of declaration under Section
229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and thus
cognizable by revenue court and not by the
civil court. Paragraph No. 13 of the
judgement is extracted hereinbelow:-

"13. From what has been discussed
above, it appears that It was not the
admitted case of the title of the plaintiff
over the suit property, even according to
the mere reading of the plaint. Thus, the
plaintiff was obliged to allege how he
obtained a right on the suit property or
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
what was the obligation in his favour in
respect thereof before he could make a
prayer for a permanent injunction. That
could
have
been
established
by
a
declaration of the right claimed by the
plaintiff and once we come to this
conclusion, the irresistible inference would
be that the suit was really in the nature of
one spoken of under section 229B of the
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and was, thus,
cognizable by the revenue court and as
such, the jurisdiction of the civil court
stood ousted."

27. In the case of Kamla Shanker
Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge,
Mirzapur, 1998 (3) AWC 1708, the order
of the trial court and revision court was
assailed before this Court. This Court found
that the names of the defendants have been
recorded in the revenue record while
petitioners name do not find place in the
revenue record, therefore, the suit is
cognizable by the revenue court not by the
civil court. Accordingly, this court upheld
the judgement of the court below. This
Court in paragraph Nos. 4 & 5 detailed the
reasons for concluding that the judgement
of the court below is correct. Paragraph
Nos. 4 & 5 of the judgement are extracted
herein below:-

"4. Section 331 of the said Act
prescribes that no Court other than a Court
mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall
take cognizance of any suit in respect
whereof provisions have been made in the
said Act providing procedure and forum for
obtaining such relief. The exclusion is clear
and
un-ambiguous.
While
expression
'except as provided by or under this Act no
Court other than a Court mentioned in
column
4
of
Schedule
II
shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908),
take cognizance of any suit, application, or
proceedings based on a cause of action in
respect of which any relief could be
obtained by means of any such suit or
application".

5. Now Schedule II in Sl. No. 23
provides in column No. 3 that suit for
injunction or for repair of the waste or
damage prescribing the forum as Assistant
Collector 1st Class in column 4 and
provisions for first appeal and second
appeal before Commissioner and Board
respectively in column Nos. 5 and 6. Thus,
it appears that suit under Section 208 of U.
P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act is provided in Schedule II prescribing
the forum within the meaning of Section
331 of the said Act. By reason of exclusion
of civil court provided under Section 331
expressly and the suit having been a suit
under Section 208 of the U. P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act fall within
SI. No. 23 of Schedule II providing for
relief in respect of the cause of action
provided in column 3 before the revenue
court. The Jurisdiction of civil court is
barred."

28. Now, this Court proceeds to
analyze the judgement of the appellate
court in the light of principles elucidated by
the court for determining the jurisdiction of
a court. According to the plaintiffs' case in
the plaint, he belongs to the family of Ajeet
Singh. Ajeet Singh and other persons
instituted two suits, one in civil court
numbered as original suit No. 262 of 1991
seeking a declaration that they are the
owner and in possession of the property in
question and another suit before the
revenue court for recording their names in
the revenue record. The plaintiff-appellants
admits in paragraph Nos. 3 & 4 of the
plaint that Ajeet Singh and others got the
aforesaid
two
suits
decreed
without
6 All. Vijay Pal & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar
237
informing the plaintiff-appellants. It is
further averred in paragraph No. 7 of the
plaint that the respondent by playing fraud
has got their names recorded in revenue
record in respect of the property in
question. It is further averred that cause of
action for filing the suit arose when the
defendant-respondent
started
illegally
interfering in the peaceful possession of the
plaintiff-appellants.

29. Specific case of the defendantrespondent in the written statement is that he
became the owner of part of the gata No. 387
under allotment by the Gaon Sabha. It is also
the case of the defendant-respondent that the
plaintiff-appellants has no interest in the
property in question and accordingly, the suit
is not cognizable by the civil court.

30. However, the case of the plaintiffappellants are that they are the owner and in
possession of the property in question, but
pleadings of paragraph Nos. 3, 4 & 7 of the
plaint reveals that the name of plaintiffappellants is not recorded in the revenue
record. It is also admitted by them that the
name of the defendant-respondent is recorded
in the revenue records. It is a different matter
that the question as to whether the allotment
of property in question to the defendantrespondent by Gaon Sabha was as per law.
The said question is engaging the attention of
this Court in Writ-B No. 5625 of 2018, but
the plaintiff-appellants cannot take advantage
of the weakness of the case of the defendantrespondent. The plaintiff-appellants has to
stand on their leg. If the pleadings of the
plaint disclose that the title of the plaintiffappellants over the property in question is
doubtful or plaintiff appellants are not certain
about their title over the property in question,
in such case, the plaintiff-appellants in order
to succeed has to seek a decree of declaration
of title.

31. Thus, the contention of counsel
for the appellants that it is a suit for
injunction which is cognizable by a civil
court based on Full Bench judgment in the
case of Ram Awlambh (supra) is not
sustainable for the reason that the title of
the plaintiff is not admitted by the
defendant and further, the plaint does not
disclose as to how the plaintiff-appellants
acquired the title over the property in
question. It is also pertinent to note that the
plaintiff-appellants did not adduce any
evidence to prove that they belong to the
family of Ajeet Singh and are the owner of
the property. Accordingly, this court finds
that the trial court committed a manifest
error of law in holding that the plaintiffappellants belong to the family of Ajeet
Singh without there being any assertion in
this respect in the plaint of original suit No.
262 of 1991. Consequently, this Court is of
the opinion that the appellate court has
rightly held that the aforesaid finding of the
trial court is perverse and not sustainable.
This court is further of the opinion that the
controversy in hand is covered by the
judgment of this court in Baiju Vs.
Shambu Saran, 1963 All LJ 1064 referred
in paragraph np. 73 of the full judgment of
Ram Awalamb and judgment of Hari
Narain (Supra).

32. Thus, for the reasons given above,
this Court finds that the appellate court has
not committed any illegality in concluding
that the suit is cognizable by revenue court
and not by the civil court. Therefore,
question No. 1 is answered against the
plaintiff-appellants.

33. As far as question No. 2 is
concerned, this Court finds that the same is
covered by the judgement of this Court in
the case of Ravi Singhal and others Vs.
Rajeev Goyal and others, 2015 (8) ADJ
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
283 (DB). Paragraph No. 11 of the
judgement is extracted herein below:-

"11. In view of above exposition of law
and considering the fact that Court below has
correctly came to the conclusion that in respect
to orders passed under the provisions of Act,
1972, Civil Court in a suit under Section 9
C.P.C., has no jurisdiction to declare orders
passed by competent authority under Act, 1972
illegal, it had not authority to proceed to decide
other issues on merits. In our view, the Court
below has rightly held that it had no jurisdiction
to try the suit. In these circumstances, the only
way open to it was to return the plaint instead
of proceeding to decide other issues on merits
and dismiss the suit. "

34. Accordingly, this Court finds merit in
the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants and modify the order of the appellate
court.

35. For the reasons given above, this
Court maintains the order and judgment of the
appellate court holding that the suit is not
cognizable by the civil court but set aside the
part of the order of the appellate court by which
it has dismissed the suit. Accordingly, this
Court directs the court below to return the plaint
to the plaintiff-appellants for presenting before
the court of competent jurisdiction.

36. For the reasons given above, the
second appeal is partly allowed with no order
as to costs.
----------

(2021)06ILR A238
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Consolidation No. 2252 of 1982

Ram Naresh Misra ...Petitioner
Versus
Sita Ram & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Hargur Charan, D.S. Pandey, V.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., H.S. Sahai, R.A. Misra, Uma Shankar
Sahai

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953-Section 9(2)-co-tenureholdersdispute relating to Gata-petitioner's name
was recorded as Bhumidhar of Gata in
basic year of consolidation along with cotenureholders-issuance
of
PA-10
was
mandatory at the relevant point of time
but none of the courts below have
recorded a single finding that the PA-10
was
issued
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
under
the
Land
Records
Manual-finding of the C.O. that the
requirement of PA-10 has been fulfilled by
the objection of the petitioner-if any entry
is
made
in
PA-10,
same
shall
be
communicated to the person or their heirs
and obtain their signatures-court below
failed to consider that the name of the
petitioner was recorded as Bhumidhar in
basic year entry therefore, the objection
was required to be filed by the respondent
no.1 asserting claims against the true
owner which he failed to do.(Para 1 to 30)

B. the period of limitation prescribed for
the suit , for ejectment of a trespasser u/s
209 of the Act 1950 was six years during
the period 1969 to 1971, and it was
increased to 12 years by notification dated
14.10.1971-therefore, suit filed by the
petitioner was within limitation-therefore,
respondent no.1 is not entitled for benefit
of section 210 of the Act, 1950.(Para
28,29)

C. It is settled principle of law of adverse
possession that the person who claims title
over the property on the strength of adverse
possession and thereby wants to diverse the
true owner of his ownership rights over