Manta vs Shobha

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the point of admission of second appeal and perused the records.

In original suit no. 251/2001 (Shobha v. Manta and another), the plaint case in brief was that plaintiff is sole bhumidhar and tenure-holder of disputed agricultural property and defendant has no right title or interest in it but is trying to interfere in plaintiff''s possession, therefore defendant be restrained from doing so by himself of permanent injunction.

In written-statement filed in original suit, defendant pleaded himself that, inter alia, litigation for declaration of title and rights of parties over disputed property is pending in revenue court, therefore, civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter.

After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, Civil Judge (J.D.), Chunar, Mirzapur had dismissed the original suit by its judgment dated 28.09.2013 with finding that since both the parties are litigating for title of disputed agricultural property in revenue court, therefore the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter.

Against the aforesaid judgment of trial court, the Civil Appeal no. 89/2013 (Shobha v. Manta and another) was preferred which was decreed by the judgment dated 25.02.2016 of Additional District Judge, Court No.-6, Mirzapur; and by this judgment the original suit was decreed for the relief of permanent injunction. In this judgment, lower appellate court had accepted this fact that applications of plaintiff and defendant are pending before revenue court for declaration of their title over disputed property; but on the basis of alleged possession of plaintiff, the first appellate court had decreed the suit.

This contention of learned counsel for the appellants is apparently acceptable that when title of agricultural property is disputed then it is the revenue court, and not civil court, which has jurisdiction to decide the matter. In present litigation, real dispute, for which original suit was filed, was the exercise of ownership and bhumidhari rights over disputed agricultural property. For the relief of permanent injunction sought in original suit, plaintiff had apparently concealed the fact that parties are litigating for the title of the disputed agricultural land before competent. When main inharent relief of original suit is the exercise of bhumidhari rights and title over agricultural property, then apparent relief sought in the form of permanent injunction becomes ancillary relief. The civil court does not have jurisdiction to decide such matter and, therefore any finding, including finding of possession, will be without jurisdiction.

On this point this appeal is admitted.

Following substantial question of law is framed.

"Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant the real relief sought in original suit ? If so, its effect ?"

Summon the lower court records.

Issue notice to the respondents. Steps within 15 days by both ways. List after service of notice.

Till further orders, operation of the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2016 of first appellate court shall remain stayed.