Back
RAJESH BINDAL, MANMOHAN
Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through Lr(s) – Appellant
Versus
Brijesh Kumar – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appeal is considered a continuation of the proceedings, and any developments during the pendency of the appeal or suit that go to the root of the case can be taken into account to prevent multiplicity of litigation (!) .
The case involves a dispute over land let out for non-agricultural purposes, specifically for setting up a petrol pump, with a registered tenancy agreement from 1970 (!) (!) .
The original suit for possession and recovery of rent was filed in 1974, and the Trial Court decreed the suit in 1981, but subsequent appeals questioned its jurisdiction based on the land's classification as agricultural (!) (!) .
The First Appellate Court and the High Court initially found that the land was agricultural and, therefore, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, leading to the suit being dismissed or the plaint being returned (!) (!) .
During the litigation, the land was finally declared non-agricultural by a competent authority order passed in 1986, which was after the filing of the suit but during the pendency of the appeal (!) (!) .
The appellant argued that the land's non-agricultural status was established during the litigation, and this development should influence jurisdictional considerations, emphasizing that proceedings are continuous and such developments can be taken into account (!) .
The respondent contended that the declaration under the relevant land reform act was not properly registered and that, in the absence of such registration, the declaration was not conclusive for establishing non-agricultural status at the time of filing the suit (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the declaration under the relevant land act was made during the pendency of the suit and that the final declaration had attained finality before the judgment, which affected the jurisdiction of the revenue court (!) (!) .
The Court found that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the land was declared non-agricultural during the course of the litigation, and the argument regarding the lack of registration of the declaration was without merit (!) (!) .
The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the First Appellate Court for a fresh consideration on merits, with a direction to decide within six months, considering the developments during the proceedings (!) .
The case underscores the principle that subsequent developments in a case, especially those affecting jurisdiction or the nature of the property, are relevant and can influence the outcome, emphasizing that proceedings are a continuum (!) .
If you need further analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case, please let me know.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The appellant-landlord has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment of the High Court1[High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] in Second Appeal No.1623 of 19922[Dated 15.02.2024]. Vide aforesaid judgment, the appeal preferred by the appellant was partially accepted while setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court3[Court of Special Judge C Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr]. However, the High Court passed an order under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC4[Hereinafter referred to as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] directing return of plaint to the appellant for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Trial Court5[Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr] had decreed the suit filed by the appellant for possession and recovery of rent. An appeal was preferred by the respondent nos.1 to 3 - tenants. The First Appellate Court had reversed the findings while holding that the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the lis because the land in question is agricultural.
2. Brief facts of the case as available on record are that a tenancy agreement was entered into between the parties on 31.07.1970, vide which
Appeal is continuance of proceedings and any developments which may take place during pendency of appeal or suit, going to root of case, can always be taken notice of to avoid multiplicity of litigat....
The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 apply to land let out for non-agricultural purposes, and without a declaration under Section 143, the Civil Court la....
A declaration under S.143 is required to alter the status and rights of a Bhumidhar, and until such declaration is made, the original rights under the Act remain intact.
The court affirmed that unauthorized occupants who built houses before the cut-off date are deemed legal owners, hence cannot be evicted despite the claims of land ownership by the appellants.
The U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has a special status under the Constitution of India, and the general civil law would not be applicable over it. The determination of the nature of land exclusively falls with....
The civil court retains jurisdiction over injunction suits concerning leased non-agricultural lands, and under applicable statutes, a plaint cannot be rejected partially but must be considered as a w....
Civil Courts lack jurisdiction in agricultural land disputes unless khatedari rights are declared by Revenue Courts; indisputable recorded ownership is essential for claims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
