Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff-opposite party sued for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. THE case taken up in the plaint was that there had been a compromise in the family to which the defendant was a signatory. THE compromise was given effect to in a litigation pending in the Civil Court. It was, however, not given effect to in the revenue court and taking advantage of that fact, respondent No. 3 Jai Singh, got his name surreptitiously entered over the disputed plots in the revenue records as a Shikmi and he threatened to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. Hence the suit for an injunction.
(2.) THE defendant, inter alia, pleaded that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. THE trial court framed a preliminary issue on this and answered it against the plaintiff. It held that the revenue court alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Aggrieved, the plaintiff appealed. THE lower appellate court held that the civil court had jurisdiction. It allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. THE defendant has now come to this court in revision. In Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shanker, 1968 AWR 731, a Full Bench of this Court has held that it is the cause of action which determines the jurisdiction of a court. Therefore in each and every case the cause of action of the suit shall have to be strictly scrutinized to determine whether the suit is solely cognizable by a revenue court or otherwise. In the present case, the real cause of complaint of the plaintiff was the state of affairs in the revenue records inspite of the existence of the compromise. The plaintiff stated that the compromise was entered in the civil court and it was not given effect to in the revenue papers. Taking advantage of that position, the defendant got his name entered as a shikmi. This complaint was hence primarily in relation to the entries in the revenue papers The plaintiff himself alleged that because of the entry of the defendant's name as shikmi he was trying to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. This was obviously the alleged consequence of the state of affairs in the revenue papers. It is well settled that the civil court cannot direct correction of the revenue papers. That is a function that is done by revenue courts -See Parsottam v. Narottam, 1970 AWR 312. In view of this decision, it is clear that the basic cause of action was such that relief on that could effectively be granted only by the revenue court. The suit was hence not maintainable in the civil court. It is barred by Section 331 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The trial court was right in returning the plaint. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court restored, with costs. Revision allowed.;