JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 4.4.2019 passed by District Judge, Ghazipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2018 disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner with a direction to the trial court to decide issue relating to jurisdiction in the light of the observations made in the order, before proceeding further in the matter. The appeal was directed against the order dated 9.3.2018 passed in Original Suit No. 722 of 2017, whereby the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was rejected. The relief claimed in the suit is for cancellation of sale deed dated 13.10.2016 executed by defendant No.3, Mangala in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property or raising constructions over the same without getting the property partitioned; and for declaration that defendant No.3 Mangala is son of late Vishwanath and not Bhairam. The appellate court, while deciding the appeal, has held that the main issue involved in the suit is whether defendant No.3 is son of Bhairam or Vishwanath. It has observed that the said issue would fall within the jurisdiction of Family Court in view of Clause (e) of the Explanation of sub-section (1) of Section 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, the above direction had been issued by the appellate court.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue relating to parentage of defendant No.3 cropped up in relation to title to the suit property. The suit does not involve adjudication of any dispute between spouses nor any dispute arising out of any matrimonial relationship. It also does not involve any declaration as to legitimacy of the defendants. The submission is that the Family Courts are constituted with the object of settlement of family disputes and not of the nature, as has been raised in the suit.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the main issue involved is whether defendant No.3 is son of Bhairam or not, therefore, the said issue would fall squarely under Clause (e) of Explanation of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the. He further placed reliance upon clause (d) which provides for a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a matrimonial relationship to be decided by a Family Court.

5. Before proceeding to consider the submissions, it would be apposite to take note of the plaint case. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner with the allegation that the suit property belonged to his ancestor Khelawan. He was survived by his son Sundar. Sundar had three sons; Mukhram, Bhairam and Rajdev. Mukhram died issueless. Bhairam had two sons, namely the plaintiff-petitioner and defendant No.2, Subedar. It is alleged that Mangala, defendant No.3 is son of Vishwanath. According to the plaint assertions, father of defendant No.3, Vishwanath was resident of a different village. He had no connection with the family of the plaintiff and his ancestors. Defendant No.3 fraudulently succeeded in getting his name entered in the municipal records showing himself as son of Bhairam and on basis thereof, he illegally transferred the suit property in favour of defendant-respondent 1st set alleging himself to be a co-sharer in the properties left behind by Khelawan and Sundar. In essence, the plaint case was that the defendant No.3 wrongly claimed himself to be co-sharer of the suit property as he is in no manner connected with the family of Sundar and Bhairam.

6. The defendants, on the other hand, have denied the plaint assertions and claim that defendant No.3 is son of Bhairam.

7. No doubt, having regard to the pleadings of the parties and the relief sought, one of the main issues to be decided by the trial court is whether defendant No.3 is son of Bhairam or not. In case it is held that he is son