Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Arun Bhansali, J.
Lal Singh Jhala - Appellant
Versus
Panna Lal - Respondent
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1644 of 2012
Decided On : 22-08-2016
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Tenancy Act - Section 207 - Income Tax Act –- Permanent injunction - Purchase of the property – Respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction, inter-alia, with the averments that the plaintiff has been using land situated on by-pass at Gogunda for commercial use wherein his godown is constructed and business of various type of stone slabs and gitti is being conducted – It was also claimed that even before purchase of the property on the said land the business of stone was being conducted the disputed land is Araji ad measuring 14.5 Biswa and Araji ad measuring 14.5 Biswa whose original khatedar was Savaji, who sold his half share to Panna Lal and handed-over the possession; Panna Lal transferred the said property to Laxmi Lal and the same has been recorded the name of Laxmi Lal and the present Araji number which land has been transferred to the plaintiff Laxmi Lal and possession has been handed-over – It was averred that the land has not been put to agriculture use at any time and the same is being put to commercial use –Held, A look at the judgment in the case of Sarifabibi (supra) would reveal that the matter pertains to the Income Tax Act and based on the definition of agricultural land under the provisions of the Income Tax – Said determination essentially pertained to issue of capital gains and was not in relation to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court – Further the judgment in the case of Nalanikant Ramadas (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the respondent also is of no use as the same pertained to the provisions of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control act wherein the definition of premises provided that any land not being used for agricultural purposes was included in the definition of the premises and in those circumstances the user of the land was relevant, whereas in the present case, user is irrelevant in so far as provision of Section 207 of the Tenancy Act is concerned – Appellant is allowed.
In the case of Lal Singh Jhala versus Panna Lal, the appellant Lal Singh Jhala challenged a decision related to the jurisdiction of civil courts over a dispute concerning land. The core issue was whether the civil court had the authority to entertain a suit for permanent injunction regarding land that was recorded as agricultural but was allegedly being used for commercial purposes.
The appellate court found that the trial court had erred in dismissing the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable in civil court due to the land’s classification under relevant land laws and jurisdictional provisions. The appellate court observed that the nature of the land, as recorded in revenue records, and the fact that it was used for commercial activities, did not automatically oust civil court jurisdiction, especially when the land had not been legally converted from agricultural to non-agricultural land.
The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of revenue courts is limited to cases where the land is unconverted agricultural land, and the mere recording of land as agricultural does not bar civil courts from hearing disputes if the land’s actual use and legal status are in question. Moreover, the appellate court noted that the trial court should have returned the plaint for presentation before the appropriate jurisdictional court rather than dismissing the suit outright.
Ultimately, the appellate court set aside the lower court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s order with a direction to return the plaint for presentation before the proper court of competent jurisdiction, acknowledging the importance of examining the factual aspects of land use and classification before determining jurisdiction.
Arun Bhansali, J.
This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u) CPC is directed against the judgment dated 23.7.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur, whereby the appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff Panna Lal has been accepted and while setting aside the order dated 6.7.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Gogunda ('the trial court'), by which application filed by the appellant-defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was accepted, the suit has been remanded back to the trial court.
2. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction, inter-alia, with the averments that the plaintiff has been using land situated on by-pass at Gogunda for commercial use wherein his godown is constructed and business of various type of stone slabs and gitti is being conducted. It was also claimed that even before purchase of the property on the said land the business of stone was being conducted; the disputed land is Araji No. 3593 ad measuring 14.5 Biswa and Araji No. 3596 ad measuring 14.5 Biswa whose original khatedar was Savaji, who sold his half share to Panna Lal on 20.2.1970 and handed-over the possession; Panna Lal transferred the said property to Laxmi Lal on 14.2.1972 and the same has been recorded the name of Laxmi Lal and the present Araji number is 6491 ad measuring 0.1200 Htrs., which land has been transferred to the plaintiff on 12.12.2006 by Laxmi Lal and possession has been handed-over. It was averred that the land has not been put to agriculture use at any time and the same is being put to commercial use. Where after, allegations were made against the appellant-defendant regarding attempt to dispossess, resulting in proceedings before the police. The said attempt was claimed to be the cause of action for filing the suit and it was prayed that the defendant be restrained from interfering in the business, entering into the property and dispossess the plaintiff.
3. The appellant-defendant filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, inter-alia, with the plea that the plaintiff has referred to the land by its description as agriculture land, the land continuous to be agriculture land and has not been converted for nonagricultural purposes residential or commercial purposes and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It was also claimed that the defendant had already filed a suit for declaration, correction of entries and permanent injunction before the SDO, Girwa, Udaipur regarding the land in question, which was purchased by him in the year 1988 by way of registered sale deed and claimed that he was in possession.
4. The application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing reply. It was claimed that the land in question is not an agriculture land, its agriculture use had ended 20 years back and the same is now commercial place, photographs have been produced indicating the area. It was submitted that the averments made in the application are false and therefore, the application be dismissed.
5. The trial court, after hearing the parties by its order dated 6.7.2012 allowed the application and dismissed the suit inter-alia observing as under:-
^^vizkFkhZ@oknh ds okni= ds voyksdu ls gh fookfnr Hkwfe dk jktLo jsdMZ esa d`f"k Hkwfe vizkFkhZ@oknh ds uke ntZ gksuk fodz; i= esa mDr Hkwfe dk yxku ns; gksuk Hkwfe xksxqank dh eq[; vkcknh ls ,d fdåehå nwj gksdj Hkwfe d`f"k dk;Z ds mi;ksx esa vk jgh gksuk Li"V gSA bl izdkj fookfnr laifRr dz; fnukad 12-12-2006 o okn izLrqfr fnukad 13-02-2007 dks d`f"k Hkwfe gksuk okni= ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS ftl laca/k esa jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 207 flfoy U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dks oftZr djrh gSA mijksDr ds lanHkZ esa tur fQjnksl cuke vyQw 2008 ¼1½ MCY;w,y,u ist 374 jktLFkku] izsehnsoh cuke nsojke] vkj,yMCY;w 209 ¼1½ vkjts ist 199 ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds izdk'k esa mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ@izfroknh }kjk izLrqr izkåiåvaå 7 fu;e 11 lhihlh dk Lohdkj fd, tkus ;ksX; gksus ls izLrqr izkåiå Lohdkj fd;k tkdj oknh iUukyky }kjk izLrqr okn {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko esa vLohdkj dj
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
