A suit for injunction based on the denial of joint grove-holder status is cognizable by the revenue court and not the civil court, as the revenue court has jurisdiction to grant a declaration of title in such cases.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal from order by Mohammad Umar Khan plaintiff is directed against an order dated 25-4-1974, passed by the District Judge, Rampur, directing that the plaint, filed by him, be returned for presentation before a proper court.

( 2 ) MOHAMMAD Umar Khan filed Suit No. 46 of 1973, in the court of District Judge, Rampur, alleging that he was joint grove-holder of the groves specified in the plaint, along with Jabbar khan, father of the defendants. Jabbar Khan got the name of the plaintiff expunged from revenue records and so arranged the matter that his name alone stood recorded therein. The plaintiff claimed that despite this he ramained in joint possession of the groves along with the defendants but for some time back Jabbar Khan started giving out that as the name of the plaintiff did not stand recorded in revenue papers, he had no right, title and interest in the groves. As the time for gathering fruits had arrived and as it was apprehended that the defendents would not permit the plaintiff to exercise the right of his joint possession over the groves and would prevent him from gathering fruits the plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable injury and loss. The defendants had been denying plaintiffs title too and possession over, the groves and were likely to interfere with his possession. He, therefore, prayed for a decree for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the groves in dispute.

( 3 ) THE defendants contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that as it was open to the plaintiff to obtain adequate relief from the revenue court, in respect of the cause of action set out in the plaint, the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This plea raised by the defendants prevailed with the District Judge who passed the impugned order directing that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before proper court.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-appellant relied upon the following observations made by a full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shanker (1968 All LJ 1108 (1123)):--

"further we are of the view that where, on the basis of a cause of action- (a) main relief is cognizable by a revenue Court the suit would be cognizable by the revenue court only. The fact that the ancillary reliefs claimed are congnizable by civil court would be immaterial for determining the proper forum for the suit; (b) the main relief is cognizable by the civil court the suit would be cognizable by the civil court only and the ancillary reliefs, which could be granted by the revenue court may also be granted by the civil court".

and urged that the crucial thing for determining as to which of the two courts, namely, whether the civil court or the revenue court has jurisdiction to try the suit would be to look into the relief claimed. Whereas, in a case where the main relief is one cognizable by the revenue court, the jurisdiction of the civil court would be barred notwithstanding that the revenue court may not have jurisdiction to grant the subsidiary relief, the civil court will, in a case where the main relief is cognizable by the civil court, hence jurisdiction to grant all the reliefs claimed in the suit. According to him, where only one relief is claimed in a suit, that relief would be the main relief and in case such relief can be granted only by a civil court, the suit would be cognizable by a civil court. He urged that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to mould his relief so as to make the suit cognizable by the revenue court.

( 5 ) RELEVANT portion of Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act runs thus :--

"except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 4 of schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code 1908 take cognizance of any suit, application or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof; or of a suit applicati