The main legal point established in the judgment is that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the compromise decree was binding on the parties. The land in question was not considered to be an agricultural area under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.

Present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1975 passed by Civil Judge, Jhansi in Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1966 arising out of judgment and decree passed by Munsif Jhansi dated 03.12.1964 in Original Suit No. 412 of 1963 (Bade Mahadeviji Maharaj Vs. Dr. Pyare Lal Misra.

2. Brief background of the case is that plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 412 of 1963 on 14.05.1963 before Munsif Jhansi contending therein that land shown by red colour and marked as letter ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO in the map appended to the plaint and area of which is about two acres formed part of plot no. 873 situated within the municipal limit of Mauranipur was Abadi land and the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the said land. On 25.10.1956 defendant of the suit illegally occupied the said land and in this background Original Suit No. 383 of 1957 was instituted in the court of Munsif Jhansi for ejectment of defendant from the said land. Said suit in question after its institution was transferred for disposal to Munsif, Lalitpur. On 09.08.1958 a consent decree was passed in the said suit and on the strength of said consent decree defendant was permitted to remain in occupation of the land as tenant on payment of annual rent of Rs. 10/-. It was agreed in between parties concerned that defendant would pay rent for each of the year in the month of February and in default of payment of rent the plaintiff would would have right to get the defendant ejected. Thereafter as defendant had failed to pay rent therefore suit was filed before Judge Small Cause Court (Munsif) Jhansi being Suit No. 44 of 1961 for recovery of rent. Said suit was decreed exparte. Said decree in question was not obeyed and the rent due has not been paid in this background plaintiff again served with the notice of demand to quit on 29.08.1962 and by means of said notice defendant was asked to vacate the disputed land after expiry of period prescribed. Defendant had choosen not to vacate the premises in question, in this background suit in question had been filed for ejectment from the disputed land and damages which is subject matter of present second appeal. In the said suit written statement was filed and plea was taken that defendant was in possession and further plea was taken that he was hereditary tenant of the said disputed land and plaintiff was neither owner in possession thereof. Land existed within the limit of Mauranipur Municipal Board and at that point of time Zamindari in the said area has not abolished. Land has been obtained for agricultural purpose in the year 1364 fasli on annual Lagan from Zamindari concerned. Suit for ejectment could have only been filed in Revenue court and the Civil court has no authority or jurisdiction to try the same and the decree passed on earlier occasion are null and void as court who has passed the said decree in question had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In this background defendant was not at all liable to vacate the land in question.

3. During the pendency of suit learned Munsif framed issue as to whether defendant was the hereditary tenant of the land in suit and for this purpose remitted the said issue for finding to the Revenue court. Revenue court gave decision in affirmative. Based on the same learned Munsif took the view that plaintiff was not the landlord of the disputed land and decree which has been passed on earlier occasion did not effect the defendant's right, in this background suit in question was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said finding of learned Munsif, plaintiff filed appeal and said appeal was also dismissed by IInd Additional Civil and Session Judge, Jhansion 31.03.1965 by holding that civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit by virtue of Section 242 of U.P. Tenancy Act. Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff preferred Second Appeal before this Court being Second Appeal No. 3002 of 1965. This Court on 29.09.1973 allowed the said appeal and set aside judgment and d