Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N.N. MITHAL, J.
Ram Bahadur - Appellant
Versus
1St Addl. Civil Judge, Allahabad - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14770 of 1986
Decided on : Feb 16, 1987
INJUNCTION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - SECTION 331 OF UP ZA AND LR ACT - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - WHETHER CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION - PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, alleging that she was the bhumidhar of the disputed land and that the defendants had obtained a sale deed through impersonation and got an ex-parte mutation of their names made in the revenue records. The mutation order was recalled by the Tahsildar, but the defendants appealed to the Board of Revenue, which stayed the implementation of the recall order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit, as the only relief claimed was an injunction and the plaintiff's name still continued to be recorded in the revenue records. The court also held that the trial court had prima facie found the plaintiff to be in possession of the land, and that this finding was sufficient to support the grant of an injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit for injunction, given that the defendants had obtained a sale deed and had their names mutated in the revenue records. 2. Whether the trial court had erred in granting an injunction without recording a specific finding regarding the plaintiff's possession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in certain types of cases under Section 331 of the UP ZA and LR Act, including suits for possession and declaration in respect of land covered by the Act. However, other suits, where relief could be granted by the Revenue Courts on the cause of action on which the suit is founded, will also be amenable to the jurisdiction of the revenue courts. 2. The true nature of the cause of action, rather than the form of the relief claimed, determines the forum of the suit. If the true relief sought is for a declaration of rights, then the civil court will have no jurisdiction. 3. In the present case, the plaintiff sought only an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her possession of the land. The court found that the plaintiff's name still continued to be recorded in the revenue records, and that the defendants' appeal to the Board of Revenue had only stayed the implementation of the recall order, not the legal effect of the recall order itself. 4. The court also found that the trial court had prima facie found the plaintiff to be in possession of the land, and that this finding was sufficient to support the grant of an injunction.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
N. N. Mithal J.
1. The writ petition is listed for admission in which parties have already exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits and all the relevant facts have been placed on record. Learned counsel for the parties, therefore, suggested that the writ petition may itself be disposed of at this very stage finally. Consequently parties' learned counsel were heard on the merits of the petition also.
2. In this writ petition the order passed by 2nd Addl. Civil Judge, Allahabad dated 18-8-86 has been challenged. By the said order the court has allowed the plaintiff's appeal against rejection of the injunction application by the trial court and the petitioners have been restrained from interfering with her possession over the disputed land.
In order to properly appreciate the controversy it will be relevant to point out that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff on the allegations that she was bhumidhar of the disputed land. The petitioners got a sale deed executed on 6th February, 1965 in respect thereof through impersonation and on its basis got an ex-parte mutation of their names made in the revenue records. The mutation order was challenged by the plaintiff without loss of time and ultimately the Tahsildar recalled the same. Against that order an appeal was filed by the petitioners but without success Thereafter the matter was brought before the Board of Revenue and implementation of the order was stayed by it and the matter is still sub-judice.
3. In the suit the plaintiff had prayed for the relief of permanent injunction only and simultaneously applied for issue of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession. The application was rejected by the trial court holding that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court but it was reversed by the appellate court holding that the civil court had the jurisdiction.
4. The petitioners' learned counsel has urged that the civil court could have no jurisdiction in view of decision in Vijai Singh v. 2nd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, 1982 RD 207 where the facts were no doubt very similar to the facts of the instant case. The decision was based on the law as laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Awlamb v. Jata Shankar, 1968 AWR 731. However, the point in controversy in that case was different. It related to jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Court where more than one reliefs were claimed in the suit, some of which were amenable to civil court's jurisdiction while some others could be granted exclusively by the Revenue Court In the present case, the controversy relates to a suit in which the only relief claimed is an injunction and the question raised is whether this necessarily involves declaration of plaintiffs' right in respect of the land ? The controversy here is, therefore, much narrower and is confined to the question whether in a suit where the only relief claimed is an injunction, in all cases invariably a declaration is involved ? In view of Section 9 CP normally a suit for injunction would be cognizable only by the Civil Courts. However, in view of Section 331 of UP ZA and LR Act the jurisdiction of the civil court has been taken away in certain types of cases. Section 331, in so far as it is relevant for our purposes, provides as under :
"331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act- (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no Court other than a Court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 43 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application : Provided that where a declaration has been made under section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suits, appl
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
