Kamleshwar Nath, J. - (1.) THE only question of involved is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the case. According to the plaint, copy Annexure -3, the Plaintiff claimed to be the Bhumidhar in -possession of the land in dispute and the trees thereon, and alleged that the Defendants, having cut away one of the trees, were threatening to dispossess him, A relief of permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant -Petitioners from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession over the land in dispute and the trees thereon, in addition to a decree for Rs. 200/ - by way of damages, was claimed.
(2.) ON a preliminary issue framed, regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court both the courts below upheld the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners simply says that since the property, in respect of which the suit was filed, was an agricultural land, in which the Plaintiff claimed Bhumidhari rights, the suit could only be filed in a revenue court in view of the provisions of Section 331 of UP ZA & LR Act. He has referred to a number of decisions, but none of them except one relates exclusively to a suit for injunction. In the case of Vijai Singh v. 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, 1982 ALJ 725 the suit in the Civil Court was for a declaration of rights in respect of certain agricultural land and for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that it was forged and fictitious. There was also an additional relief of injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession. In the case of Mewa v. Baldeo : AIR 1967 All. 358 : 1966 AWR 597 the suit was for cancellation of a sale deed on the ground of fraud and also for possession in case the Plaintiff be not found in possession. In the case of Bankey Singh v. Ram Sabad Singh,, 1965 AWR 474 : 1965 ALJ 549 the suit was for a permanent injunction to re; train the Defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff and in the alternative for delivery of possession. It may also be mentioned that on the evidence on record, it was found that the Plaintiff was not in possession of the property in dispute.
(3.) THE case of Himmat Singh v. Channoo Lal, 1964 AWR 283 is of no assistance to the Petitioners because there the jurisdiction of the civil court was beheld in a case where declaration of Sirdari rights and permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the standing crop, was sought. The principle on which the learned Counsel for Petitioners seeks to rely is that it is not the nature of relief, but nature of the cause of action which determines the forum. That is the true position and in this case the cause of action is one for which claim could be made before the Civil Court.;