JUDGMENT: - The present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The suit was for permanent injunction in respect of plot No.279 area 3.11 acres, which was a Pokhri, against the defendants. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court as well as by the lower appellate Court holding that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

2. The other question related to the rights of the parties over the Pokhri under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. However, as the finding of the Courts below was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case, they should not have dismissed it. The suit should have been returned for presentation to proper Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a Division Bench case reported in AIR 1946 All 488, Kallu v. Phundan. It was held that

where the Civil Court held that the suit was triable by a revenue Court the proper course was not to dismiss the suit but to return the plaint for presentation to proper Court. In AIR 1965 SC 338, Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar it was held as u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document