JUDGMENT : This second appeal arises out of a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over certain plots of agricultural land, The suit was filed on 16th October 1951 in the civil court. Prior to the institution of the suit the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration under Section 59/61 of the U.P. Tenancy Act of 1939 in the revenue court in respect of the plots but that suit was stayed as a result of some general executive order of the Government and the present suit was then filed in the civil court.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that he was a hereditary tenant of all the seven plots in dispute. The claim was made on two grounds; firstly, that the plots had been settled with the plaintiff by Suit. Khurshed Laqa, the khudkasht holder of the plots; and secondly, that the plaintiff acquired hereditary rights in the plots under Section 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act of 1939. Admittedly, the plots appertained to Khewat No. 13 which was owned by Irfan Ahmad and by Suit. Khurshed Laqa in her personal capacity and also as mutawalli of a waqf, but it was stated by the plaintiff that the plots were the khudkasht of Smt. Khurshed Laqa and she was, therefore, competent to settle them with the plaintiff. The suit was contested by all the defendants. It was denied by the defendants that the plaintiff was either hereditary tenant or in possession of the plots in suit. It was further denied that the land had been settled with the plaintiff as claimed by him. The plea of jurisdiction was also taken.

3. An issue regarding tenancy rights way referred to the revenue court for a finding and the revenue court recorded a finding against the plaintiff. While the suit was pending in the trial court the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force and the plaintiff thereupon made an application for amendment of the plaint by which he claimed to have become a Bhumidar of the plots in suit in consequence of his making the requisite deposit. This application was allowed on 24th July 1952.

4. The issue of jurisdiction was decided by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff and it held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On merits, however, the trial court dismissed the suit with the finding that the plaintiff had no interest in the plots in suit and was not in possession thereof.

5. On appeal by the plaintiff the decree of the trial court was reversed and the suit was decreed. The lower appellate court found that the plots in suit were the Khudkasht of Smt. Khurshed Laqa and they had been settled by her with the plaintiff. It also found that the plaintiff had, at any rate, acquired the rights of a hereditary tenant under Section 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act of 1939.

6. The first contention raised before me by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the suit was beyond the cognizance of the civil court because even though the relief sought was one of injunction the real object of the suit was to obtain a declaration that the plaintiff was a hereditary tenant of the plots in suit, as is obvious from the fact that he had in the first instance brought a suit for such a declaration in the revenue court. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on Baiju v. Shambhu Saran, 1963 All LJ 1064 Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, has frankly conceded that on the date on which the present suit was instituted the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it but he has urged that during the pendency of the suit the civil court came to acquire jurisdiction over a suit of this nature.

He has pointed out that after the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act a suit for declaration of Sirdari rights was maintainable only in the civil court till the passing of U.P. Act XXVIII of 1961 and his contention is that even though the suit was initially not within the cognizance of the civil court,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document