D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE unanimity of opinion on the controversy of the nature, as is involved in the present petitions, could not deter the litigants interested in forestalling the proceedings In Civil Court.
(2.) IN the present three writ petitions common question for consideration, as cropped up, is as to- "Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of suits was barred under section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 ?" It is settled position of law that the jurisdiction of the Court is determined on the basis of averments in the plaint without reference to the defence in the written statement. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider the defence set up in the written statement, The brief facts are-fa) Suit No. 141 of 1980 was filed by one Kamala Om in the Court of the Munsif, Bansgaon, against Sarvsri Radhey Shyam Ojha and Hari Narain Ojha for the cancellation of the sale deed dated 9-4-1980, which was executed in favour of Radhey Shyam Ojha, defendant, 1, and related to the holdings as well as the house belonging to the plaintiff. The relief was founded on the allegations that the plaintiff who was issueless, executed a will in respect of his property in favour of Hari Narain Ojha, defendant no. 2, where upon Radhey Shyam Ojha, with a view to deprive the plaintiff of his property, got executed the said sale deed in his favour through an imposter impersonating the plaintiff, who, in fact, did not execute the sale deed in question and the same was fictitious. It was also alleged that no possession was exchanged there upon and the plaintiff continues to be in possession of the holdings as will as the house and if any mutation has been resorted to on the basis of the sale deed, the same is of no consequence and has no impact, as the plaintiff did not receive any notice in respect of the mutation proceedings, If any. (b) Suit no. 187 of 1981 was filed by one Sri Sailesh Kumar Pandey, minor, through next friend, Sri Har Prasad, in the Court of the Munsif, Bansgaon, against Onkar Nath Pandey and four others seeking the cancellation of the two sale deeds dated 19-2-1979 and 21-2-1979. The sale deed dated 19-2-1979 was in favour of Onkar Nath Pandey, defendant no 1, and the sale deed dated 21-2-1979 was in favour of Sarvsri Daya Shanker Pandey, Param Hans, Hari Ram and Jawahar Lal, defendants no. 2 to 5 respectively. It relates to the holdings as well as the house belonging to the plaintiff. Apart from the relief for cancellation of the said two sale deeds, the plaintiff also claimed the relief for possession in the event he was found out of possession over the agricultural plots. The relief was founded on the allegations that Smt. Surja Devi, the natural guardian of the plaintiff, did not execute the sale deeds in question and the same were got executed through imposter by impersonating her. The same did not bear her thumb impression and were fictitious and fraudulent. (c) Suit No. 146 of 1983 was filed by one Smt. Sumari in the Court of the Munsif, Bansgaon, against Sarvsri Jatai and seven others seeking the relief of injunction for not inteferring In her possession over plot no. 96, Which was the subject matter of the sale deed dated 6-3-1982. The relief was founded on the allegations that the defendants got executed the said sale deed dated 6-3-1982 in their favour through an Imposter by impersonating her. The sale deed so executed was fictitious and invalid and conferred no right or title on the defendants. She also claimed herself to be in possession of the land and the names of the defendants were not mutated on the basis of the sale deed and in the record of the rights her name is continuing.
(3.) IN all the aforesaid three suits, objection regarding their maintainability in Civil Court, in view of section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act's) was taken. In Suit No. 141 of 1980 the trial court while deciding the objection en 7-7-1982, took the view that the suit was maintainable in the Civil Court The District Judge, Gorakhpur, in revision there against, maintained the order of the trial court, vide his order dated 26-11-1982. These two orders are the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 1062 of 1983. (b) In Suit No. 187 of 1981 the trial court while deciding the objection on 17-7-1982, took the view that the suit was maintainable in the Civil Court. In revision, the IV Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, maintained the order of the trial court, vide his order dated 6-1-1983. These two orders are the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 3698 of 1983. (o) In Suit No. 146 of 1983 the trial court on 31-5-1983 took the view, while deciding the objection as a preliminary issue, that the suit was not maintainable and directed for return of the plaint for presentation in proper Court. This order was set aside by the District Judge on 14-12-1983 in revision filed there against holding that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court This order of the District Judge is the subject matter of challenge In the Writ Petition No. 4939 of 1984.;