The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide a suit for partition and permanent injunction with respect to the property in dispute, the provisions of Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act had no application to the facts of the present case and in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the C. P. C. , the Court below had territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants revision filed under Section 115 of the C. P. C. against the judgment and order dated 26. 11. 98 passed by Civil Judge. Senior Division, Bahraich, whereby issue Ncs. 7, 13 and 14 have been decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and issue No. 12 has been directed to be decided after production of the evidence by the parties.

( 2 ) RELEVANT facts of the case giving rise to the present revision are that the plaintiff-respondent smt. Krishna Devi filed Original Suit No. 34 of 97 for partition of the property in dispute and for permanent injunction, in the Court below. It was pleaded that the property in dispute, which has been described in Schedule A and B appended to the plaint, was joint Hindu family property, which was not partitioned. In the property In dispute, the plaintiff-respondent claimed 1/2 share on the basis of the pedigree given in the plaint, and further prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants-applicants restraining them from interfering in the joint possession and from ejecting her from the property in dispute till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds. Prayer for injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction in the property in dispute was also made.

( 3 ) THE defendants-applicants filed written statement admitting the correctness of the pedigree given in the plaint, but contended that some of the disputed properties were not ancestral, technical and legal pleas regarding Jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit, bar of section 331 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act as well as territorial jurisdiction of the Court below, were also taken.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed issues in the case, issue No. 7 related to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain and decide the suit. Issue No. 13 related to bar of Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and Issue No. 14 related to territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. On the request made by the learned counsel for the parties, said issues were taken up for decision as preliminary issues. The Court below after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on the record decided said issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It has been held that the civil court had the jurisdiction to hear and decide the aforesaid suit, the suit was not barred by Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and that the Court below had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit, hence the present revision.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants contended that the Court below has acted Illegally with material irregularity in deciding the aforesaid issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It was urged that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the aforesaid suit, that the suit was barred by Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and that the Court below had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. The view taken to the contrary by the Court below, was manifestly erroneous and illegal, therefore, the Judgment and order passed by the court below was liable to be set aside.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent supported the validity of the iudgment and order passed by the Court below. It was urged that the civil court had iurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit for partition and permanent injunction with respect to the property in dispute, the provisions of Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act had no application to the facts of the present case and in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the c. P. C. , the Court below had territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit.

( 7 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

( 8 ) SECTION 9 of the C. P. C. provides that the civil courts are to try all civil suits unless they are s