- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The order dated 8-9-1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, IVth Co art, Mathura in Original suit No. 598 of 1987, holding issues No. 2 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed by an order dated 28- 1-1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Mathura, in Civil Revision No. 215 of 1997. The said two issues which were decided as preliminary issue involved the question as to whether the suit was barred by reason of Section 331 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. These two issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit was not barred by Section 331 of the Act and the suit is maintainable before the Civil Court.
(2.) SRI Rahul Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the land was not residential plot and was in fact agricultural plot, therefore, the dispute involved in the suit is barred by provisions of Section 331 of the Act. Ac cording to him the suit for injunction in volved declaration of title and, therefore, it is well within the mischief of Section 331 of the Act. He further contends that the relief prayed for in the present suit cannot be granted without adj udication of the title to the property and declaration thereof in favour of the plaintiff. He also relied on various decision in support of his conten tion, to which reference shall be made at appropriate stage. Heard Sri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Janardan Sahai, learned Counsel appear ing on behalf of Caveator opposite-party at length. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff had prayed for, injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plain tiff in respect of suit property and for possession thereof. The foundation of the suit was led on the basis of sale-deed executed by the defendant-petitioner herein, on 15-9-1975 for the purposes of construction of a house, being plot No. 10 by carving out a particular piece of land, of which posses sion was delivered to the plaintiff, but sub sequently the defendant had illegally con structed a wall on the part of land and had entered into possession thereof.
(3.) SRI Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner concedes that petitioner-defendant had sold the proper ty to the plaintiff opposite-party by virtue of the said sale-deed. But according to him the land being agricultural property, proceeding in relation thereto can be entertained by the Revenue Court and not by Civil Court. The submission appears to be wholly misconceived for two reasons. The first reason is that the defendant him self having sold the land to the plaintiff he is estopped from preventing the plaintiff from possession of the property and he cannot maintain his possession in respect thereof. After the sale-deed was execute the defendant had no right, interest or title in the said property and therefore, he can not raise any claim. ' which requires adjudication of title to the, property. Second ly, he himself having carved out into several plots and having sold the same for the purposes of construction of a house, it is not open to him to say that it was not made for construction of a house and the land was agricultural land. He himself having sold it, he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. In asmuch as even assum ing that the land is agricultural land but the defendant himself had sold the same to the defendant- (sic plaintiff), whatever might be the purpose, he cannot now contend after having sold the property to the plain tiff so as to use the land for a particular purpose. His right, interest or title having vested in the plaintiff he cannot raise such question. The suit is a simple suit for injunc tion and possession. The foundation being on the basis of transfer by the defendant to the plaintiff, it involves no adjudication of right, title or interest between the parties. The defendant himself having sold the property to the plaintiff, he is estopped from disputing the title of the plaintiff which he himself transferred to him through a sale-deed. Section 331 of the Act prescribes that no proceeding or suit can be maintained except before appropriate forum in respect of the prescribed relief as provided in Schedule-II of the said Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sub mits that this suit comes within purview of Serial No. 34 of Schedule-II relating to the suit for declaration of right within the ambit of Sections 229,229-B and 229-C of the said Act. From the plaint it does not appear that any relief for declaration has been sought for. Then again the very pleading and the relief claimed shows that it is not a dispute within the meaning of Sections 229,229-A and 229-B of the Act. Section 229 deals with declaratory suit, while Section 229-A refers to trespass of holding or land of Gaon Sabha or local authority, and Section 229-B deals with declaratory suit by person claiming to be an asami of a holding or part thereof. The present suit does not fall within the ambit of any of the said Sections. Then he claimed it to be within serial No. 1 relating to recovery of possession within the ambit of Section 12 of the said Act. Section 12 deals with Thekedars to be hereditary tenants in certain circumstances. Here in the present case the plaintiff did not claim to be hereditary tenants nor sought to establish his right as Thekedar. On the other hand he claimed his right on the basis of sale-deed.;