2008 Supreme(SC) 749

2008(5) Supreme 45
Supreme Court of india
P.P. Naolekar & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Mahant Dooj Das (Dead) through LR. — Petitioners
versus
Udasin Panchayati Bara Akhara & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 5060 of 2007
Decided on : 01-05-2008

Important Point
The courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which there is a bar expressly or impliedly provided.
Settled principle that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a civil court to establish his contention.
Well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly construed.

Headnote:(a)U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 – Sections 8 and 5 – Unless and until it is shown that the land in suit has been declared as a demarcated area or falls within the demarcated area, exercising the powers under Section 5, it cannot be said that it has been vested in the State – Instantly, no evidence has been led by the defendants that the suit land had been declared as a demarcated area and the suit area being declared to be such has vested with the State government under Section 8. (Para 15)

       (b)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 9 – The courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which there is a bar expressly or impliedly provided – Settled principle that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of a civil court to establish his contention – Equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly construed. (Para 16)

       AIR 1966 SC 1718; AIR 1967 SC 781; (1990) 1 SCC 207; (2003) 6 SCC 151; (2003) 6 SCC 220 – Relied upon.

        (c)U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 331 – Unless the land is vested in the State Government, the provisions of Section 331 would have no application to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court – The defendants having failed to prove the applicability of that provision to the area in the suit, civil court’s jurisdiction cannot be said to have been ousted and vested in the revenue court. (Paras 18 and 20)

       (d)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – A new plea, which does not appear to be a pure question of law cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time at the time of hearing of the appeal by the Supreme Court. (Para 21)

       (e)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100(5), Proviso – To apply the proviso of the provision it is a necessary condition to be satisfied that the High Court feels satisfied that the case involves such question on which the hearing has to given to the parties although such substantial question of law has not been framed – Secondly the High Court must record its reasons for its satisfaction – Instantly, it cannot be said that any other substantial question of law than already framed by the High Court has either been framed or has been left open by the High Court to be adjudicated at a later stage. (Paras 23 and 25)

       AIR 2001 SC 965; AIR 1997 SC 2517; (2006) 6 SCC 271 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

       1.The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit claiming decree for possession over the properties/lands mentioned in the plaint after adjudging the sale deed dated 5.5.1962 registered on 19.6.1962 invalid executed by Budh Dass in favour of Udasin Panchayati Bara Akhara, defendant No.1-respondent No.1 to be void and cancelling the same.

       2.Mahant Tahal Dass initiated the plaintiff-Dooj Das as his chela on 23.7.1937 and from that day the plaintiff became the chela of Mahant Tahal Dass. Mahant Tahal Dass died on 5.12.1957 and the plaintiff being the eldest chela was recognized and acknowledged as successor of the deceased Mahant and thereafter was known as Mahant Dooj Dass.

       3.The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff was initiated as the eldest chela of Mahant Tahal Dass according to the custom and the plaintiff became the heir and successor in respect of the properties of Mahant Tahal Dass.

       4.The first appellate court held that plaintiff was the eldest chela of Mahant Tahal Dass and was duly installed as successor of the Mahant and he succeeded to the properties of his Guru.

       5.The High Court, in second appeal, has held that the suit as it is filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable before the civil court and on this ground has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the courts below.

       Findings of the Court :

       Civil court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction

       Result : Appeal allowed with cost.