JUDGMENT

R.L. Gulati, J. - This is a Plaintiff's first appeal from order which has been referred to a Division Bench by C.B. Capoor, J. by his order dated 20-1-1967 as in his opinion the decision of a learned single Judge in Rameshwar v. Ram Asrey 1965 AWR 367 requires reconsideration.

2. The Plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the City Munsif Varanasi in respect of an agricultural plot of land for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants:

(i) from cutting the crops standing over the plots in suit;

(ii) from interfering with the Plaintiff cultivating the plot in suit and enjoying the fruits of it; and

(iii) from interfering with the Plaintiff in his possession over the plot in suit.

3. The Plaintiff's case as disclosed in the plaint was that the plot in suit was under his tenancy and occupation since 1356 F., that originally he was the sub-tenant of the plot but after the abolition of zamindari he became its adhivasi and later he became sirdar and after paying ten times, the rent to the Government he acquired the status of a bhumidhar. He further alleged that the Defendants had no Concern with the plot but they were interfering in his cutting the crop which he had sown and had threatened that they would not allow the Plaintiff to cultivate the land in suit.

4. The Defendants contested the suit on the ground that the land in dispute belonged to a joint family of which the Defendants and the Plaintiff were the members and that the compensation for acquiring bhumidhari rights had been paid to the government out of the joint family fund but the name of the Plaintiff alone had been entered in the revenue papers because he was the karta of the family.

5. The trial court rejected this plea of the Defendants and held that the Plaintiff was the sole bhumidhar. One of the questions that was raised before the trial court was as to whether the suit was cognizable by the civil court in view of the provisions contained in Section 331 of the UP ZA and LR Act. This issue was also decided by the trial court against the Defendants. The Defendants then went up in appeal and the Third Addl. Civil Judge, Varanasi allowed the appeal on 19-10-1956. The appeal was allowed on the preliminary ground that the suit was not triable by the Civil Court and was barred by Section 331 of the UP ZA and LR Act. This contention prevailed with the appellate court because in its view the suit was covered by Section 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act and was not triable by a civil court. He, accordingly, ordered that the plaint be returned to the Plaintiff to be presented before a revenue court. The present appeal is directed against that order of the learned Third Addl. Civil Judge, Varanasi.

6. The short question that falls for our consideration is as to whether the appellate court was right in holding that the suit was not cognizable by a civil court and was barred by Section 331 of the UP ZA and LR Act.

7. The suit was filed in 1963 after the amendment of Section 331 in 1961. The material portion of that section after the amendment in 1961 reads as below:

331 (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in col. 4 of Schedule 2 shall, notwithstanding any thing contained in the CPC 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application or proceedings mentioned in col. 3 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)

(Explanation : If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted).

A reading of the above provision shows, no doubt, that the intention of the Legislature was to confer exclusive jurisdiction on revenue courts with regard to suits or application or proceedings mentioned in col. 3 of Schedule II and also in respect of suits, application