The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the civil court can be ousted under Section 25 of the Agrarian Reforms Act if the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers as per Section 19(3)(e) of the Act.

ORDER

The instant Civil 2nd Appeal has been filed against judgment and decree order dated 02.11.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Poonch whereby while allowing the appeal, judgment and decree passed by the trial court i.e., Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch has been set aside on the ground that the jurisdiction of the trial court to try and decide the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.

2. The grounds on which the judgment and decree has been challenged are that learned District Judge, Poonch has committed error by allowing the appeal and setting aside judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The defendants (respondents herein) were duly served in the suit but they took a false ground that they were not served and their signatures were forged. The jurisdiction of the civil court is barred only in respect of the disputes which are raised under the Agrarian Reforms Act, when a claim made is prior to 1971 and claim for adverse possession is made from Kharif 1971, only then jurisdiction of the civil court is barred. The Agrarian Reforms, Act was not applicable as the land in question is an ancestral property and the appellant and respondents were recorded as co-owners /co-sharers. The appellant has also filed an application/suit, after the decree and judgment, before the Revenue Authorities, but he is refusing the disposal of the same on the ground that he has no jurisdiction.

3. Briefly, stating the facts of the case are that the plaintiff and defendants are real brothers. Plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he is in possession of the same for the last more than 12 years and being in adverse possession he has become the owner, so his claim having become the owner is based upon his claim of adverse possession against the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in ex-parte and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff /appellant.

4. While passing the decree it has been observed by the trial court that defendants after being served filed their written statement and admitted the claim of the plaintiff where after they remained absent. The trial court after recording the evidence found that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving the suit, passed the decree and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Relevant portion of the decree is reproduced as under:-

“As such, plaintiff is entitled to decree as has been prayed by him and accordingly decree of adverse possession is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the plaintiff as owner of the land measuring 21 Kanal 06 Sarsai out of Khasra No.786 (Il k 24 m), 790 (12 K 15 M), 766 ( 6 K 19 M), situated at village Bandi Chachian, Tehsil Haveli District| Poonch. Parties shall bear their own costs. Civil clerk is directed to prepare the decree sheet accordingly. File shall go to records after its due compilation.”

5. The respondents-defendants being aggrieved of the judgment and the decree passed by the trial court challenged the same before the 1st Appellate Court (District Judge), Poonch. The judgment and decree was challenged in appeal before the District Judge, Poonch on the ground that they were not served in the suit nor they had authorized anybody to appear and filed Vakilatnama on their behalf. Forged signatures were managed by the plaintiff on the Vakilatnama and on the written statement. They also challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on the ground that the jurisdiction of the trial court was barred in view of the provisions contained under Section 25 of the Agrarian Reforms, Act. The claim of the plaintiff made in the suit is covered by clause (e) of Sub-subject 3 of Section 19 of the Agrarian Reforms, Act and to deal with the issue raised by the plaintiff and the relief claimed by him is trible by the Collector as per the provisions of the said Section. The trial court wrongly assumed the jurisdiction and passed the decree which bei