OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR Vs. G C MUKHERJEE
LAWS(ALL)-1976-4-26
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 08,1976

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT CALCUTTA Appellant
VERSUS
G. C. MUKHERJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the decision of an issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff applicant filed a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that the order dated 27th September, 1960, passed by the Assistant Collector declaring Sri G. C. Mukherjee, defendant, as sirdar was vitiated by fraud and for possession and damages. One of the plea taken in defence was that the land in dispute was agricultural and the civil court has no jurisdiction. Issues 8 and 9 were framed on these pleas. The trial court held that the land was agricultural and had not ceased to be so. It further held that the suit was cognizable by the revenue court under Sections 229 and 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, so the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up in revision. Section 229-B applies to a suit where a person claims to be sirdar or Bhumidhar of the land in suit. In the present case the plaintiff claimed that the land is not agricultural and that the defendant was not sirdar thereof. The plaintiff was not claiming any declaration of title either as a sirdar or as a Bhumidhar in his favour ; as such Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was not applicable. Similarly Section 209 applies to a suit by a person who claims to be Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami. In the present case the plaintiff did not put forward any such claim. According to him the land in question was non-agricultural to which the tenures created under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would not be attracted. The plaint as framed does not, in my opinion, attract Section 209 either.
(3.) IN the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The finding recorded by the trial court on issue no. 9 is set aside and it is held that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The case is sent back to the trial court for proceeding with the decision of the case in accordance with law. The applicant will be entitled to costs. Revision allowed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.