Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral)

The present First Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pauri Garhwal in Original Suit No. 06/2016 (Chandra Mohan Singh Panwar Vs. Kedar Singh Danu), whereby, while deciding preliminary issue no. 4 the trial court has held that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit.

2. In brief, the suit for perpetual injunction and possession was instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pauri Garhwal by the plaintiff with the pleadings that he is the bhumidhar of Khet Nos. 677 and 678, Khata No. 82, measuring 300 square meters, situated at Village Ganganali, Patti Katalsyu, Tehsil Srinagar. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had purchased the said land vide registered sale deed dated 15th July, 2004 from one Durga Prasad, which was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Srinagar on the same date. It was further pleaded that the defendant had purchased an area of 400 square metres within Khet Nos. 677 and 678 of Khata No. 82 vide a registered sale deed dated 15th July, 2004 from the same vendor, namely Durga Prasad, which was also registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Srinagar. It was next averred in the plaint that taking advantage of the plaintiff’s absence, the defendant, a resident of Srikot Ganganali, illegally took possession of the plaintiff’s land on 4th June, 2015, raised the height of the boundary wall, and put up a lock on the gate thereof. The said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 1st July, 2015, when he came to Srinagar to look after his land. Despite objections raised by the plaintiff and repeated requests made by him, the defendant neither vacated the disputed land nor removed his unauthorized possession. It was also pleaded that the defendant had no right to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession over the suit property. Accordingly, the suit was instituted seeking reliefs of permanent injunction and possession over the land in question.

3. The aforesaid suit was registered as Original Suit No. 6 of 2016, Chandramohan Singh Panwar vs. Kedar Singh Danu. The defendant/respondent contested the suit by filing his written statement, wherein the averments made in the plaint were denied. In the written statement, particularly in paragraph no.18 of the additional pleas, it was pleaded that the suit property is agricultural land recorded in Khata No. 14 and Khata No. 82 of Village Srikot Ganganali. It was further contended that the said land falls within the definition of “land” under Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, as applicable to Uttarakhand. It was specifically pleaded that the principal relief sought in the suit is restoration of possession of agricultural land and, therefore, the suit ought to have been instituted before the competent revenue court. Consequently, it was contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

4. In view of the rival pleadings, the trial court, vide order dated 13.06.2018, framed as many as five issues and issue nos. 3 & 4 were to be heard as preliminary issues first. Issue No. 4 was framed as follows:

“Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit?”

5. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that on 8th August, 2018, the trial court heard the parties on Issue No. 4 pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court.

6. The trial court considered the submission made on behalf of the defendant that the disputed land is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records and falls within the definition of “land” under Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short “UPZA & LR Act”). It was, contended that since the plaintiff had also sought the relief of possession, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

7. The trial court also considered the submission advanced o