The nature of the decree sought determines the jurisdiction of the court, and in this case, the suit was barred by Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

JUDGMENT

This is a plaintiff's second appeal, where the plaintiff/appellant has given a challenge to the impugned judgments dated 08.08.2018, as rendered by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun in O.S. No.221 of 2017, Smt. Shalini vs. Premlata and others whereby, by virtue of the judgment, which was rendered by the trial court the plaintiff/appellant's, suit was dismissed on the ground of a bar being created by Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., to be read with Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Subsequently on a challenge being given to the said judgment of the Trial Court, by the plaintiff/appellant in an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as Civil Appeal No.112 of 2018, Smt. Shalini Sharma vs. Premlata and others, the court of IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, too had dismissed the first appeal by the impugned judgment of 19.04.2019 and consequently has affirmed the finding and the reasoning, which had been recorded by the learned trial court vide its judgment of 08.08.2018. The second appeal when it was heard on admission stage, the second appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law; as was framed by this Court vide order dated 26.06.2019, which was to the following effect:-

"1. As to whether both the courts erred at law in not framing an issue under Section 331A and referred the matter for its consideration before the Assistant Collector in view of the provisions contained under Section 331A.

2. Whether the Civil Court could have decided the matter pertaining to the maintainability of the proceedings by appreciating the evidence and, particular, the implications of Section 143 and the consideration of the revenue entries made in the revenue records.

3. Whether the appellate court could have while considering the implications flowing from the trial courts judgment in dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC could have ventured beyond the scope of the trial court's judgment by recording its findings pertaining to the implications of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act."

2. This is the nature of the case, where the second appellate court while answering the substantial question of law has to maintain the delicacy and a precaution too, of not venturing into the merits of the matter where the question of jurisdiction is to be decided which relates to the sustainability of the suit preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. The precise argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant; was that the suit instituted by the plaintiff/appellant before the learned trial court on 28.07.2017, when the learned trial court was venturing on to the question, for attracting the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C., it ought not to have ventured to decide the matter on the basis of the inter-se pleading raised between the parties and it was expected and it ought to have exclusively confined to the pleadings raised in the plaint itself. Secondly, he submits that since on the basis of the rival contentions, which were raised before the learned trial court; where the question of maintainability of the suit came into consideration and since as per plaintiff/appellant it was a disputed question, then in that eventuality, it was incumbent on the learned trial court to have referred the matter to be answered for by the court of Assistant Collector under Section 331(A) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

3. During the course of argument, what has emerged and which remains undisputed and admitted by the counsel for the parties are that:-

i That the land in dispute which was the subject matter of the suit; that is land lying in Khata No.00731, Khasra No. 1812 Ka and Khasra No. 1869 Ka having a total area of 0.4140 of hectares situated in village Ajabpur Kalan, District Dehradun was and is still a land which still continues to be recorded in Shreni I, which is a class of land provided u