The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction to determine the nature of tenancy and consequent ownership rights under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 lies with the revenue court as specified in the Punjab Tenancy Act, and the civil court's jurisdiction is barred by legislative intent.

M.L.Singhal, J.

1. This is civil revision against the order dated 9.8.1999 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palwal whereby she decided that Civil Court has jurisdiction to try this suit.

2. Nirmal and Tulli plaintiffs filed suit for declaration against Omkar Singh and others to the effect that they have become owners of land in suit because of the coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act No. 8 of 1953) on 15.6.1952 because prior to the coming into force of this Act, they were occupancy tenants and with the coming into force of this Act, their occupancy nights became enlarged into ownership rights in view of the provisions of Section 3 of this Act.

3. Defendants contested the suit inter alia urging that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as ft lay within the ambit of revenue Court to determine the nature of tenancy. "Whether they were or were not occupancy tenants as defined in Section 5, 6 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 is a matter that falls for determination before the revenue Court"?

4. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palwal vide order dated 9.8.1999 found that civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether the plaintiffs were occupancy tenants so that further declaration could be granted to them whether their occupancy rights had been enlarged into full ownership rights with the coming into force of the Act No. 8 of 1953.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare whether one is or is not occupancy tenant, such declaration can be given only by the revenue Court under Section 77(3) of the Act No. 16 of 1887. Section 77(3) of this Act lays down that "the following suits shall be instituted in, and heard the determined by, Revenue Courts, and no other Court shall take cognizance of any. dispute or matter with respect to which any such suit might be instituted:-

Provided that - (1) (2) on the plaint being presented to the Collector, the Collector shall proceed to hear and determine the suit where the value thereof exceeds Rs. 1,000 or the matter involved is of the nature mentioned in Section 77(3), First Group, of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), and in other cases may send the suit to an Assistant Collector of the first grade for decision. FIRST GROUP (a) (b) (c) SECOND GROUP (d) suit by a tenant to establish a claim to a right of occupancy, or by a landlord to prove that a tenant has no such a right; (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) THIRD GROUP (n) (o) (P) It was submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 77(3)(d) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, only Revenue Court has the jurisdiction to declare whether (a) has or (a) has not right of occupancy. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Raghbir Singh v. Beli Ram, (1967)69 P.L.R.D. 396 and Jiwan v. Ram Sarup (dead) through his LRs., (1988-1)118 P.L.R. 349. In Raghbir Singhs case (supra), it was held that "suit in which the dispute is with regard to the nature of the tenancy i.e. whether the plaintiffs are occupancy tenants or tenants at will under the defendants is triable by the Revenue Court. The plaintiffs prayer that they were entitled to be declared as owners of the land under Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act is consequential upon the declaration they seek in regard to the nature of their tenancy. If the plaintiffs succeed in establishing that they are occupancy tenants and obtain a declaration of their rights through a Court of competent jurisdiction, they will automatically become the owners of the land is a mere surplusage. The real object of the suit is to obtain declaration about the nature of their tenancy. Such a suit is triable by a Revenue Court." In Jiwans cases (supra) it was held that "suit in civil Court seeking declaration to be owner in possession claiming that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as occupancy tenant and so also his predec