M.H. Beg, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit filed by the appellants for the declaration of their rights to the extent of ²/₅th in equity of redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated 26th February 1890, and for redemption u/s 12 U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act. The contents of the 'plaint' filed in the court of the Judicial Officer and Civil Judge, Almora, show that it was really an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The plaint was not rejected in limine. It was also not returned for presentation to a court of appropriate jurisdiction. The defendants-respondents filed a written statement in which no objection as to the jurisdiction of the trial court was taken on the ground that there was an application, under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, which was not maintainable in the court of the Judicial Officer and Civil Judge, Almora, and that the proper court was that of the Collector, as the mortgage was for an amount exceeding Rs. 500/-. Issues were framed and the suit was tried. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the document of 1890 was not a usufructuary mortgage, that the defendants were owners of the land in suit, and that the suit was barred by Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act. The plaintiffs appealed, and the lower appellate court held that the deed of 1890 was a mortgage deed. The lower appellate court also held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, which should have been filed only in the court of the Collector inasmuch as the mortgage was for a sum not exceeding Rs. 500/-. The lower appellate court also held that the prayer for declaration was redundant, and that the court of the Collector had the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as it was really an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The plaintiffs appellants then prayed orally for the return of the plaint for presentation to the court of the Collector. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, held that the plaint could not be returned as it was an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and not a plaint at all. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs-appellants have come up in second appeal to this Court.
(2.) The only question which has been argued before me is whether the plaint, which was in substance an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, should have been returned for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Or. VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been argued by Mr. R. C. Ghatak, for the appellants, that the plaint, even though in substance an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, could be returned as a 'plaint' within the meaning of Or. VII, Rule 10 C. P. C, Mr. N. D. Pant has argued for the respondents that there was no 'suit' at all before the trial court inasmuch as there was no plaint before it. He argued that the provisions of Or. VII, Rule 10 were only applicable to "suits".
(3.) The term "suit" has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. All that we get from Or. IV, Rule 1, C.P.C. is that every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf, and that the plaint shall comply with rules contained in Ors. VI and VII, C.P.C. In the case before me, the document filed in the trial court as a plaint complied with the requirements of Ors. VI and VII, C.P.C. It purported to be a plaint and was so treated by the trial court. An application under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act has also to comply with all the substantial requirements of a plaint, as a glance at Section 12, read with Section 27 and Appendix "I" to the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act reveals. Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act shows that an application under that provision for redemption of a mortgage is a substitute for a suit, that it must satisfy the requirements of form and give "such particulars as the State Government may by rule prescribe" that it must pray for an order directing that "the mortgage be redeemed and, where the mortgage is with possession, that he be put in possession of the mortgaged property." Section 12 also provides: "The application, shall be duly verified in the manner prescribed by law for the verification of plaints and shall state the sum which the applicant declares, to the best of his belief, to be due under the mortgage. The applicant shall at the same time deposit such sum with the Court." Appendix 'I' contains the form prescribed by the State Government for an application under Section 12. It requires all the particulars which are to be found in a plaint. It ends with a verification, as laid down in Section 12, in the same way as a plaint is verified. Sec. 27 of the U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act runs as follows:- "The provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in regard to suits shall be followed, so far as they can be made applicable, to all proceedings under this chapter, and all orders passed under this chapter shall be executed in the manner prescribed for execution of Civil Court decrees.";