Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. S. Dhavan, J.
MULA - Appellant
Versus
BABU RAM - Respondents
Second Appeal 840 Of 1956
Decided On : 07/28/1959
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - SECTION 54 - INJUNCTION - POSSESSION - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - REVENUE COURT - U. P. TENANCY ACT - SECTION 180 - EJECTMENT - SECTION 242 - BAR OF JURISDICTION - SECTION 60 - DECLARATION - SECTION 64 - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - SECTION 145 CR. P. C. - ATTACHMENT - POSSESSION - MAGISTRATE'S ORDER - BINDING EFFECT - POSSESSION ON DATE OF SUIT - ADMISSION IN WRITTEN STATEMENT - ISSUE OF TITLE - REMISSION TO REVENUE COURT - PROCEDURE - OBJECTION - ACQUIESCENCE - LEAVE FOR APPEAL.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the land in dispute and for a declaration that they were entitled to receive the sale price of the crop deposited in court. The defendants admitted the allegation that the plaintiffs were in possession, but resisted the suit on the ground that they were tenants on batai for the last eight years and had been cultivating on the plot as batai-tenants.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed plots as bhumidars and that the attachment of the plots under Section 145 Cr. P. C. was made when the plots were in the plaintiffs possession. The defendants appealed to the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. Whether the order of the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr. P. C. directing the delivery of possession to the defendants barred the civil court from passing an order of permanent injunction against the defendants. 3. Whether the finding of the trial court on possession was based on the judgment of the revenue court in the plaintiffs suit under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and therefore illegal. 4. Whether the issue relating to the plaintiffs status as bhumidars could be referred to the revenue court and should have been decided by the civil court itself.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit as the plaintiffs were not barred from seeking an injunction under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, since they could not have obtained an equally efficacious relief from the revenue court under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, which provides for the ejectment of persons occupying land without title, as the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants were trespassers. 2. The order of the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr. P. C. directing the delivery of possession to the defendants was not binding on the civil court, as the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. are intended to enable the executive authorities to maintain the status quo before the flaring up of the dispute and to leave it to the parties to obtain a final decision from a court of competent jurisdiction. 3. The finding of the trial court on possession was not based on the judgment of the revenue court in the plaintiffs suit under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, as the revenue court had held that the plaintiffs were bhumidars and that the defendants were not batai-tenants, which negated the earlier but provisional conclusion of the Magistrate under Section 145 Cr. P. C. 4. The issue relating to the plaintiffs status as bhumidars could be referred to the revenue court, as the defendants did not object to the reference and appeared before the revenue court without protest and led evidence in support of their case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and leave for appeal was refused.
( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal against the decree of the Second Civil Judge, Meerut, confirming a decision of the trial court by which the plaintiff-respondents suit for an, injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering with their possession over the plot of the land in dispute and for a declaration, that he was entitled to receive the sale price of the crop deposited in court was decreed. The facts which have led to this appeal, yery briefly, are these. In the year 1951 there was a dispute between the plaintiff-respondents and the defendant-appellants over a plot of land which led to an apprehension of breach of the peace. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. were initiated, and the trying Magistrate attached the land in dispute as well as the standing crop. A supurdar was however appointed by the court and the crop was sold by him for Rs. 700/- and the amount deposited in. court. The plaintiff-respondents were also permitted to cultivate the land in dispute for the Kharif season of 1951 in consideration of payment of a sum of Rs. 100/- to the court. on 11th December, 1951, the Magistrate passed an order under Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. holding that the defendant-appellants were in possession. The operative part of his order runs thus:
"the attached crops shall be released in favour of the opposite party (the present defendant-appellants ). The first party (the present plaintiff-respondents) is prevented from interfering in the possession of the opposite party until otherwise ordered by a competent court. They will be put in possession. "
The plaintiff-respondents filed a revision against this order, which was dismissed on 6th february, 1952. However he had remained in possession of the land in dispute which had been given to him for cultivation by an order of the court. It appears that the direction of the magistrate that the defendant-appellants should be put in possession was not carried put immediately. On 8th February, 1952, the plaintiff-respondents filed the suit which led to the present second appeal. They prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering with their possession of the plot in dispute and for a declaration that they were entitled to the amount of Rs. 800/-which had been deposited before the Magistrate in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. It must be carefully noted that the plaintiff- respondents did not pray for possession of the land but asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. On 12th February, 1952, the defendant-appellants filed their written, statement in which they admitted the allegation that the plaintiffs were in pos session, but resisted the suit on the ground that the defendants were tenants on batai for the last eight years and had been cultivating on the plot _ as batai-tenants. The plaintiff-respondents obtain ed a temporary injunction from the trial court restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. It appears, however, that the temporary order must have been vacated, for the defendants took the possession of the plots in dispute by virtue of the order of the Magistrate under Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. , and filed a dakhalnama in the civil suit. The plaintiff-respondents thereupon, on 23-4- 1952, filed a suit under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act in the revenue court for the ejectment of the defendants and for damages. On 19th march, 1953, this suit was decreed by the revenue court, and two days later, on 21-3-1953, the plaintiff-respondents re-acquired possession _ of the plots in dispute by another dakhalnama obtained under the decree of the revenue court. On 9th April, 1953, the plaintiff-respondents filed this dakhalnama and a copy of the judgment of the revenue court in the civil suit. On 24th april, 1953, the civil suit itself was decreed by the learned Munsif, who held that the defendants, were not the batai-tenants o
AI
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
