S.S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decree of the lower appellate court dismissing their suit on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the dispute and returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The appellants filed at first a first appeal from order under Sec. 104, C.P.C. treating the decision of the lower appellate court as an order appealable under O. 43, R. 1, C.P.C., but this Court took the view that the appeal was essentially directed against the decree dismissing the appellants' suit and thereupon the appellants sought permission to convert their F.A.F.O. into a regular second appeal and pay the necessary court fee. He was permitted to do so and has paid the court fee.
(2.) The plaintiff appellants filed a suit against the defendant-respondents for the recovery of possession of certain plots situate in their village and for Rs. 800/- as damages. They allege that they had been holding these plots as sub-tenants of two persons who were the fixed rate tenants of these plots. They further claim that, with the coming into operation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1951), they had become the Adhivasis of these plots. They complained that the two defendant respondents had been interfering with their possession since the year 1959 F and that the dispute reached the stage when proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P.C. had to be taken. The Magistrate, after hearing the disputants, put the defendant respondents in possession, leaving the plaintiff appellants to enforce their rights in the proper court. Thereupon they filed a suit before the Munsif of Mirzapur for recovery of possession and damages against the defendant respondents. The learned Munsif framed a number of issues on the pleadings of the parties, one of them being whether the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court. He held that it was. He also upheld the contention of the plaintiff respondents that they had become, on the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Adhivasis of the plots by virtue of Sec. 20 of that Act. He rejected the contention of the defendant appellants that they had become Sirdars or Adhivasis of the plots in dispute and totally disbelieved their evidence describing the defendant appellant Parasram and his witnesses as "liars who have not been ashamed of eating their own words." Accordingly, he decreed the plaintiff appellant's suit for possession and damages. He assessed the damages at Rs. 500/-.
(3.) In appeal the learned Additional Civil Judge, Mirzapur, reversed the finding of the trial court on the question of jurisdiction. He held that the plaintiff appellants had a remedy under Sec. 20 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act to enforce their right to possession of the land, and that Entry No. 4 of schedule 2 of the Act provided that an application for recovery of possession under Sec. 20 is maintainable before the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division in which the plots are situate. He also held that Sec. 331 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in a dispute of this nature. Accordingly, he upheld the preliminary objection of the defendant respondents and allowed their appeal with costs. He set aside the decree of the trial court with a direction that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff appellants for presentation to the proper court. Against this decision the plaintiffs have filed a second appeal before this Court.;