Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Desai and Takru, JJ.
JAG-NARAIN MALLAH - Appellant
Versus
BHAGAUTI PRASAD PANDEY - Respondents
Civil Revn. 126 Of 1952
Decided On : 08/02/1957
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - SECTION 9 - U.P. TENANCY ACT - SECTIONS 180, 183, 242 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL AND REVENUE COURTS - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - CAUSE OF ACTION - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Two suits were filed in civil courts under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of land, alleging dispossession by the defendants within six months of the suit. In one case, it was revealed during the hearing that the plaintiff had previously filed a suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for ejectment of the defendant, which was stayed due to U.P. Acts 10 of 1949 and 7 of 1950, and the current suit was filed concealing these facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the jurisdiction of civil courts to hear suits under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is barred by Section 242 of the U.P. Tenancy Act if a suit could be instituted in a revenue court under Section 180 or 183 of the Act. The prohibition extends not only to suits based on a cause of action mentioned in either of those sections but also to suits based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of such a suit. The plaintiff cannot choose the forum by making appropriate allegations in the plaint; the forum is determined by the real or actual cause of action, which cannot be changed or suppressed. The jurisdiction of a civil court is excluded if certain circumstances existed, even if the allegations in the plaint would confer jurisdiction. The court also held that the period of limitation for a suit under Section 180 or 183 is prescribed in the second schedule of the Act and is dependent solely upon the cause of action. The non-filing of a suit within the limitation period extinguishes the cause of action, and the effect of limitation cannot depend upon the allegations to be made in the plaint.
Issues: 1. Whether a suit can be instituted in a civil court under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act even though a suit could be instituted in a revenue court under Section 180 or 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. 2. Whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred by Section 242 of the U.P. Tenancy Act if a suit could be instituted in a revenue court under Section 180 or 183 of the Act. 3. Whether the plaintiff can choose the forum by making appropriate allegations in the plaint. 4. Whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is excluded if certain circumstances existed, even if the allegations in the plaint would confer jurisdiction. 5. Whether the period of limitation for a suit under Section 180 or 183 is dependent upon the allegations to be made in the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of civil courts to hear suits under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act is barred by Section 242 of the U.P. Tenancy Act if a suit could be instituted in a revenue court under Section 180 or 183 of the Act. 2. The prohibition extends not only to suits based on a cause of action mentioned in either of those sections but also to suits based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of such a suit. 3. The plaintiff cannot choose the forum by making appropriate allegations in the plaint; the forum is determined by the real or actual cause of action, which cannot be changed or suppressed. 4. The jurisdiction of a civil court is excluded if certain circumstances existed, even if the allegations in the plaint would confer jurisdiction. 5. The period of limitation for a suit under Section 180 or 183 is prescribed in the second schedule of the Act and is dependent solely upon the cause of action. The non-filing of a suit within the limitation period extinguishes the cause of action, and the effect of limitation cannot depend upon the allegations to be made in the plaint.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision applications, set aside the decree of the trial court, and dismissed the suit with costs.
( 1 ) THESE two revision applications raise the same question whether a suit can be instituted in a civil Court under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act even though a suit could be instituted in a revenue Court under Section 180 or Section 183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act.
( 2 ) THE two suits which give rise to the applications were instituted in civil Courts under Section 9, Specific Relief Act and were both decreed in spite of the objections of the defendants-applicants that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to hear them was barred by the provisions of Section 242 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Both the suits purported to be suits purely and simply under Section 9, Specific Relief Act; the only allegations contained in the plaints were that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land in dispute previously and that they were dispossessed by the defendants within the six months immediately preceding the institution of the suits. In the suit giving rise to the application, No. 1543 of 1951, it turned out from the evidence produced in the Court that in the course of record operations the name of the defendant-applicant was entered in the khasra of 1355 Fasli in compliance with an order passed by a Record Officer. The land in dispute was khudkasht of the plaintiff-opposite-party and his name was entered in the column of tenants name in the khasra of 1354 Fasl. In the remarks column there was a note that the possession of the plaintiff-opposite-party was disputed, that the defendant-applicant was in possession and that there was an order of the record Officer that the name of the defendant-applicant should be entered in the khasra of 1355 fasli with the term of cultivation as one year. Accordingly the applicants name was entered in the khasra of 1355 Fasl. On establishing these facts the defendant contended that the civil Court had no jurisdiction, its jurisdiction being barred not only by the provisions of Section 242, U. P. Tenancy Act, but also by those of Section 40, U. P. Land Revenue Act. In the other suit giving rise to the application no. 126 of 1952, it was established during the hearing of the suit that the plaintiff had instituted a Suit against the defendant for his ejectment from the land in dispute under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, that proceedings in the suit were stayed in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Acts Nos. 10 of 1949 and 7 of 1950 and that while the proceedings remained stayed the suit was instituted concealing the facts about the institution of the suit under Section 180 and its stay.
( 3 ) A person entitled to admit another to occupy a plot of land is entitled to eject him through a suit under Section 180 if he takes possession of it without his consent and otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law, and a tenant ejected from his holdings or a part of it otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law by his landholder or a person claiming as such or a person admitted to or allowed to retain possession of the holding by him, may Sue him for possession under Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act. It is provided in Section 242 that suits of the nature specified in the fourth schedule (suits under ss. 180 and 183 are specified in it) must be heard and determined by a revenue Court and no other Court can take cognizance of any such suit, or of any suit based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such Suit. Previously the provision was that if adequate relief could be obtained by means of a suit in a revenue Court, no suit would lie in a civil Court; later the word "adequate" was expunged and still later the word "any" was added. The position now is that if some relief, whatever be its nature and however inadequate it may be, can be obtained by means of a suit under Section 180 or Section 183, no suit can be instituted in a civil Court. The language employed in Section 242 is as emphatic as it is clear. As observed by our
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
