Umrao Singh and Others vs Giridhari Prasad and Others

Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri M.S. Chauhan counsel for the appellants and Sri Pankaj Purohit counsel for the respondent.

Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 2.7.1993 passed by the District Judge, Chamoli dismissing the appeal No. 4 of 1991 against the judgment and decree dated 7.9.1991 passed by the Munsif, Karanprayag.

Briefly stated the plaintiff-respondent Girdhari Prasad has filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Munsif, Karanprayag against the appellant-defendants restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in Khasara No. 1378 and 1379 and from cutting the wheat crop there from.

According to the plaintiff one Sri Kundan Singh sold 49 Nali 3 muthi land situated in village Naag Bagarh to Dhanbeer Singh s/o Sri Fate Singh. Kundan Singh kept with him 6 nali 15 muthi land of Khasra No. 172, 766 and 929. New numbers of these plots are 351, 1318 and 1415 respectively. Dhanbir Singh sold 21 Nali 7 muthi land including land of Khasra No. 802 to the plaintiff and the plaintiff became owner and in possession of Khasra No. 1378 and 1379. The plaintiff has alleged that he is a poor person working as peon in a school and the defendants who were powerful persons were trying to grab the land of khasra No. 1378 and 1379. On 22.7.1988, the defendants cut away the crop of the plaintiff from those khasra.

The defendants filed joint written statement. They denied . the plaintiffs case and they alleged that they had purchased 8 nali 10 muthi land from Kundan Singh vide sale deed dated 1.12.1966 which included khasra No. 1378 and 1379 and they were in possession of these plots. The plaintiff is not in possession of the land in dispute. They had filed a suit u/s 209B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act which was pending. Originally Kuridan Singh was the tenure holder of the disputed land. All family members of Kundan Singh were dead in an accident. Fate Singh, Patwari got a sale deed executed in favour of his minor son Dhanveer Singh. Thereafter he was transferred from the village and never came back to the village. The defendants have made counter claim that they were owner of plot No. 1378 and 1379 and according to the private partition this land was in possession of defendant Inder Singh.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is owner of the dispute plots ?

Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed plot and defendants want to dispossess him ?

Whether the defendants purchased the disputed property in 1966 vide sale deed dated 1.12.1966 ?

Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as alleged in para 17 of the W.S. ?

Relief?

Both the parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Plaintiff has examined himself as P.W. 1 and Kundan Singh as P.W.2. The defendants examined D.W. 1 Inder Singh and D.W.2 Jaspal Singh.

The Munsif decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs by deciding all issues in his favour. Feeling aggrieved the defendants have filed appeal before the District Judge, Chamoli which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991. The District Judge has dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 2.7.1993. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants.

It is admitted to both the parties that Kundan Singh is the original tenure holder of khata No. 18140 area 56 Nali 2 Muthi. He sold 49 nali 3 muthi land vide sale deed dated 21.3.1949 to Danbeer Singh. Danbeer Singh sold 21 nali land to Girdhari Prasad. On 1.12.1966 the defendants purchased 8 Nali 10 muthi land from Kundan Singh. On the basis of documents on record the trial Court has held that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession over the land of plot No. 1378 and 1379, which requires no interference.

On behalf of the appellants it has been argued that the appellants and respondents are co-tenure holders and no decree of injunction could be passed in favour of the plaintiff. Specific khasara numbers have been shown in the sale deeds executed by Kundan Singh in favour of Danbeer Singh and Danbeer Singh in favour of the plaintiff Girdhari Prasad. Thus the parties were tenure holders of separate khasara numbers and if the Revenue Authorities had recorded their names jointly, the parties cannot be said to be joint tenure holders.

The appellants have also taken plea that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for injunction as the land in dispute is agriculture land and only revenue court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This question has not been raised before the trial Court. A Civil Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those of which its cognizance is barred either expressly or impliedly under any local law.

The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction only and the suit is maintainable in the civil Court. If the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiff over the land in question, the remedy lies before the revenue court.

Both the courts below have recorded the concurrent findings. I find no substantial question of law so as to interfere u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed summarily with costs.