B.D.Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS revision arises out of proceedings under the provi sions of the Provincial Insolvency Act (here inafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) SOME time in 1960, Jagardeo and Behari, arrayed as the first two op posite-parties in this revision, applied for being declared insolvents and there is no controversy that they were so declared some time in 1964, whereafter an Official Recei ver, who is the applicant in this revision, was appointed. In the schedule of property stated to belong to Jagardeo and Behari, only certain moveables were mentioned. In July 1965 the Official Receiver made an application purporting to be under Sec. 4 of the Act which stands dismissed by the order sought to be revised by this petition. In the application, the assertion made by the Official Receiver was that certain agri cultural plots were 'Sirdari' plots of the in solvents which had been under the cultiva tion of the insolvents but the insolvents, under collusion with Basantu and Darbari, described as his relatives, had manipulated false entries in the revenue records through the village Lekhpal in order to defraud their creditors. Basantu and the heirs of Darbari are also impleaded as Opposite-parties in this revision. The relief claimed in the application was as follows:- "Declaration be kindly made that the insolvents Behari and Jagar Deo are sirdars of the plots detailed in Schedules A and B of this petition and Basantu and Darbari or Mst. Kaushalya, the widow of Darbari have no concern with the said plots." The application was contested by Basantu and Mst. Kaushalya who asserted that Ba santu had been in actual cultivatory posses sion over the plots for the last twelve years and was 'sirdar' thereof. It was also assert ed that the entries ia their favour were correct and neither fictitious nor collusive. The assertion that they were relations of tie insolvents was denied. The last plea, with which we are concerned in this revision, was that the insolvency Court had no juris diction to grant the declaration sought for. The Insolvency Judge took the view that the relief claimed in the application under Section 4 of the Act was not maintainable before the insolvency court with the result that the application made by the Official Receiver was dismissed. On appeaji to the District Judge, the order passed by the In solvency Judge was affirmed whereafter the Official Receiver filed the revision before us. After hearing learned counsel at some length, we have come to the conclusion that the view taken by the Courts below is per fectly correct and this revision must fail. The plea that the insolvency court had no jurisdiction to grant the de claration sought for by the Official Recei ver was based on the provisions contained in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act). It was urged that, keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 229-B of the said Act read with Sec tion 331 of the said Act, revenue courts had exclusive jurisdiction to declare that a cer tain person or persons were 'sirdars' of any particular land. On behalf of the Official Receiver, reliance was placed on the provi sions contained in Section 4 of the Act and it was urged that it was the insolvency court which had full power to decide all types of disputes arising in the course of insolvency and the said jurisdiction of the insolvency court was not excluded by the provisions contained in the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. We have no doubt that in so far as the pro visions contained in Section 4 of the Act are concerned, the insolvency court would, normally, have jurisdiction to decide the controversy raised by the petition under Section 4 of the Act filed by the Official Receiver. The question, however, is as to whether this can be done by the insolvency court notwithstanding the provisions con tained in Sec. 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act read with Section 229- B thereof.
(3.) THERE is no controversy that a claim for declaration that a person is the TBhumidhar' of certain land is a relief which falls within the ambit of Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and, further that in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 331 of the said Act, suit for such a relief would normally be maintainable only in the revenue court. What has been con tended on behalf of the Official Receiver is that even so the aforesaid provisions con tained in the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act do not oust the jurisdiction of the insolvency court to decide the question raised by the Official Receiver in his petition under Sec tion 4 of the said Act and to get the relief of declaration prayed for by the Official Re ceiver on that application. The principal argument of learned counsel for the appli cant was that notwithstanding the fact that the property belonging to the insolvents may vest in the Official Receiver the Re ceiver, does not by virtue merely of that fact, himself become the 'sirdar' of any land which, according to him, constitutes land which belonged to the insolvent. We find ourselves unable to accept this contention. Whatever doubt there may have been in regard to what precisely vests in the Offi cial Receiver under Section 28 of the Act, we have no doubt that since the incorpora tion in the aforesaid Act, of Section 28- A, by way of amendment in 1948, the Official Receiver is invested with the status of the insolvent qua property which may be alleged to have belonged to the insolvent as also with the power to recover such property by taking appropriate proceedings. Sec. 28-A of the Act runs as follows:- "28-A. The property of the insolvent shall comprise and shall always be deemed to have comprised also the capacity to exer cise and to take proceedings for exercising all such powers in or over or in respect of property as might have been exercised by the insolvent for his own benefit at the commencement of his insolvency or before his discharge: ;