CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Pt. Parmanand vs Pt. Jagdish Prasad alias Lalwa

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 7 May 1976 · Citation: (1976) AWC 492 : (1977) RD 18

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satish Chandra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 109, 143, 144, 209, 3
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Rev. No. 344 of 1973 in C.R. No. 100 of 1972
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 370 words

Satish Chandra, J.—The question that arises for consideration id this case is whether the suit was maintainable in the civil court. The trial court held in the affirmative. The Defendant went up in revision where the findings were affirmed Aggrieved, the Defendant applicant has come to this Court by way of revision.

2.

The facts are that the Plaintiff let out the land in suit, which is situated on the bank of river Ganges for opening a Ghat and for putting up hutments for the convenience of the pilgrims. There can be no two opinions that the purpose for which the land was let out was not a purpose connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry.

3.

Clause (14) of Section 3 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act) defines ''land'' to mean (except in Sections 109, 143 and 144 and Chapter VII) land held for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming.

4.

The objection that the civil courts had no jurisdiction was based upon the provisions of Section 331 of the Act which prohibits the civil court to take cognizance of any suit mentioned in column No. 3 of Schedule II of the Act or of a suit based on similar cause of action. Learned Counsel pointed out Section 209 of the Act and insisted that the suit for his ejectment could have been filed u/s 209 of the Act.

5.

Section 209 of the Act provides for a suit for ejectment of a person taking or retaining possession of land. Section 209 does not give any definition of land contrary to the definition provided in Clause (14) of Section 3. Section 209 can, therefore, apply to land which was held or occupied for the mentioned purposes. The Defendant did not hold or occupy the land for any such purpose. Section 209 was, therefore not applicable to a suit for his ejectment from the land in suit, and so the provisions of Section 331 could not bar the suit. The lower courts were right in holding that the suit was maintainable in the civil court.

6.

The revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed with cost.