A civil suit can only be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds without examining merits, as jurisdiction must be established prior to substantive issues.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent.

2. Appeal is admitted.

3. The instant first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagina Bijnor in Original Suit No.801 of 2007 (Iqbal Ahmad vs. Mohiyuddin), whereby the plaintiff's suit for the relief of permanent injunction and declaration has been rejected.

4. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff filed O.S. No.801 of 2007 against the defendant in the lower court with the averments that as per khewat no.11, there is an orchard in khasra no.165, current no.165(b) area 1-13-0 in Mauja Rashidpur Satidas falling within the boundaries of Nagar Palika Parishad, Nagina, which is currently known as Mohalla Pahadi Darwaja, Nagina, in which Rahmat-ul-nisha (plaintiff's paternal grand mother), Nazar Ahmad, Umar, Saeed Ahmad (plaintiff's father), Batul, Zafar Ali, Mariyam, Akhtari, Mohd. Mehendi, Mohd. Aslam, Aamna, Kudasia, Umatul Aziza and Ruqayya were the owners in possession alongwith defendants' predecessor Zafaryab Hussain.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that except Zafaryab Hussain, all other above named persons, had executed an oral gift (hiba) at some point, in favour of his father Saeed Ahmad, which was accepted by him, alongwith the possession of the gifted property.

6. According to the plaintiff, after the acceptance of the above oral gift (hiba), his father became owner of the 99% of the above named property, situated in khewat no.11. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father had orally gifted (hiba), the above property to him, about 25 years back and he had accepted the gift, alongwith the possession of the gifted property.

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that since some share in the disputed property belonged to the predecessor of the defendant Zafaryab Hussain, who with the connivance of the revenue officers had got mutated his name fraudulently in the revenue records, whereas, the name of his predecessors was deliberately left out, which should have been entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff has further averred that on the basis of the above illegal revenue entry, the predecessor of the defendant, as well as the defendant, had illegally tried to usurp the disputed land. The plaintiff has further averred that the Khatauni submitted by the defendant, paper no. 47C in the trial court, is fraudulent and illegal, because it has been prepared in collusion and connivance with the revenue officials, which needs to be corrected by the Court.

8. When the defendant refused to get corrected the relevant Khatauni entries, then the plaintiff has filed the suit in the lower court with the following reliefs:-

(i) That by decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, the defendant be restrained from interfering in the 99% share of the plaintiff in Khasara no. 165, current no. 165 (b) area 1–3–0 Mauja Rashidpur, Satidas.

(ii) That by decree of the court, it be declared that the Khatauni paper no.C-47, C-48 and C-49 are fraudulent and incorrect, and consequently, the revenue authorities be directed to correct the above revenue entries by recording the ownership of the plaintiff in 99% of the disputed property on the basis of oral gift (hiba) made in his favour by his predecessors.

9. It is apparent that the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming to be the owner of 99% of the disputed property on the basis of oral gift (hiba), executed in his favour, by his predecessors. It is also apparent that the plaintiff is not the recorded tenure holder, but he is seeking permanent injunction, which cannot be granted without seeking any relief of declaration of title, which can only be granted by the revenue co