JUDGMENT

Ziaul Hasan, J - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against a decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow dismissing his suit for a declaration in respect of some property. Sat Narain, plaintiff-appellant, is the grandson of Gayadin, brother of one Ram Prasad. Ram Prasad was a member of the Co-operative Society of Sarai Shahzadi. The appellant was nominated by Ram Prasad as his heir though his wife Sukhedi, defendant 2, is still living. Ram Prasad appears to have died in or about 1935. The Society held a decree against him and on 8th November 1935, they passed a resolution that Sat Narain's name Bhould be substituted in the decree in place of Ram Prasad, deceased. On 12th December 1935, a warrant of attachment was issued in respect of the appellant's property, moveable and immovable. On 13th December 1935, a sale proclamation was issued fixing 5th January 1936 for sale. It was not however served on the appellant as required by law. On 5th January 1936, the attached immovable property was sold and on 1st February 1936, the suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the appellant against the Co-operative Society concerned and Mt. Sukhdei, widow of Ram Prasad, for a declaration that the property sold belongs to him and that the sale is consequently void and ineffective. Both the Courts have held that Ram Prasad and his brother Gaya Din were separate and that the property in suit is the property of the appellant but both have dismissed the suit holding that it was barred by Section 233(m), Land Revenue Act. The plaintiff therefore appeals. Section 233(m) bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts with respect to

claims connected with or arising out of the collection of revenue (other than claims under Section 183) or any process enforced on account of an arrear of revenue or on account of any sum which is by this or any other Act realizable as revenue.

2. The wording of this clause is no doubt very wide and it is because of this that suits of various kinds both against private individuals as well as Government have been held to be barred by this clause. For instance, in Secy. of State v. Mahadei (1896) 19 All 127, in which in satisfaction of an arrear of revenue by certain defaulters some cattle belonging to the plaintiff who had no concern with the land in respect of which the arrear was due, were sold and the suit was brought against the Secretary of State, the defaulters and the purchaser of the cattle, it was held that the remedy of the owner of the cattle lay entirely in the Courts of Revenue and that no suit would lie in a Civil Court respecting the sale. Similarly, in Abdullah v. Secy. of State (1927) 14 AIR All 532, the property of the plaintiffs had been attached by the Collector at the request of the liquidator of a Co-operative Society on account of a debt due by a member of the Society, the plaintiff's objection to attachment was rejected and the plaintiff got the property released on security of a third person. Subsequently, a suit was brought by the plaintiffs and the surety against the Secretary of State, the liquidator and the defaulting member. It was held that Section 233(m), Land Revenue Act, barred the claim. In this Court also, the same view was taken in Khud Mukhtar Bank Utrawan v. Bhagwandin AIR 1935 Oudh 325 in which a Cooperative Bank had obtained a decree against a member of the Bank and in execution attached a house and a gondah. The father of the judgment-debtor filed an objection claiming the property to be his but his objection was disallowed. He then brought a regular suit for a declaration that the house and the gondah belonged to him. The trial Court decreed the suit in part and the Bank's appeal was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. This Court dismissed the suit in toto and held that it was barred by Section 233(m), Land Revenue Act.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also relied on the case in Co-operative Society v. Qadir (1934) 21 AIR Oudh 431