J.S. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THIS Defendants' Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Temporary Sessions Judge, Banda dismissing the appeal and confirming the decree of the learned Munsif. The suit was filed by the Plaintiff -Respondents for an injunction restraining the Defendant -Appellants from interfering with their possession over the plots in dispute.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the Defendant -Appellants on the ground that the Defendant -Appellants were a co -Bhumidhars of the plots in dispute and that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court. Plea of non -joinder of Gaon Sahba and State of U.P. was also taken. The learned Munsif negatived the Defendants' contention that they were co -Bhumidhars. The learned Munsif further held that the suit being a simple suit for injunction was cognizable by the Civil Court. In appeal the lower appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial court, hence this Second Civil Appeal. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the suit in substance was a suit for declaration of the Plaintiff's right and as such was not cognizable by the Civil Court in view of Section 331 ZA Act. He has placed his reliance on Sugrim v. Saraswati, 1971 AWR 85.
(3.) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the Respondent has contended that the suit being of an injunction simplicitor was cognizable by the Civil Court. Reliance has been placed by him on Himmat Singh v. Channoo Lal, 1964 AWR 283 wherein it has been laid down that for determining the jurisdiction it was necessary to find whether such a suit could have been filed in a Revenue Court and if the answer was in the negative the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar, 1968 AWR 731 is also to the effect that the principal relief sought would be the determining factor for deciding the jurisdiction of the Court.;