IMPORTANT POINT
Unregistered document does not confer any right.

ORDER :

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 20.07.2006 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Second Appeal No. 49 of 2006 in and by which the High Court has affirmed the judgment of the Courts below granting the decree for permanent injunction restraining appellants/defendants from putting further construction and granting mandatory injunction for demolition of the construction raised in the property.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs purchased the suit property by a sale deed dated 03.05.1979 from the owner Swami Sardar Jagir Singh for a consideration of Rs.18,400/- and the respondents/plaintiffs have become owner of the property and their names were also recorded as Bhumidhar in the revenue records. Respondents/plaintiffs alleged that the appellants/defendants have encroached upon the suit property and put up construction. Hence, the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for demolition of the construction raised by the appellants in the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from putting up construction.

3. The appellants pleaded that they purchased the property from sardar Jagir Singh by a document dated 11.03.1976 for Rs.1,800/- of the area 30x30 ft. The appellants/defendants contended that they are in possession of the property for more than 15 years and perfected the title by adverse possession. The defendants have taken specific plea that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act and Land Reforms Act.

4. The Trial Court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and also ordered demolition of the construction raised in the property by the appellants. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal; but held that the respondents/plaintiffs are not entitled to receive compensation/mense profit for use and occupation as ordered by the Trial Court. The Second Appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants was dismissed by the High Court.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and materials on record.

6. The appellants/defendants are claiming title over the suit property by unregistered document dated 11.03.1976. As concurrently held by the Courts below, the unregistered document does not confer any right upon the respondents. We also do not find any good ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below regarding the rejection of plea of adverse possession raised by the appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly raised the contention that the Courts below have not adverted to the plea raised by the appellants that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit and the suit is barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act. In the Trial Court, Issue No. 7 was framed on the plea regarding the bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act. Sofar as Issue No. 7 is concerned, the Trial Court in its judgment pointed out that the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court and the suit being barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act has been decided in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in the preliminary issue by order dated 13.02.1998.

7. While considering the question relating to the jurisdiction of the Court, the High Court in its judgment observed as under:

“An identical case, the Allahabad High Court in Ram Awalamb and others vs. Jata Shankar and others reported in AIR 1969 Allahabad P/526 has held that if the suit for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction along with the ancillary relief of possession have been filed before the Civil Court, the Civil Court had the right to entertain the said suit under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Learned counsel for the defendants/appellants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Deokinandan and others vs.