HIMMAT SINGH Vs. CHANNOO LAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises the vexed question of jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain certain kinds of suits with respect to agricultural land.

(2.) The suit which has given rise to this appeal was filed in 1957 in the civil court. The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs were: (1) a declaration that the plaintiffs were Sirdars of the land in suit, (2) a declaration that they were owners of the crops standing on the land at the time of the institution of the suit, and (3) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the land in the suit. In view of the fact that the judgment and the decree in appeal have not been assailed on any other ground except that of jurisdiction it is unnecessary to set out the respective cases of the parties. I may only mention that the defendant denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs, claimed that he was Bhumidhar in possession of the disputed land and further pleaded that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The court of first instance dismissed the suit but on appeal its judgment was reversed by the learned Civil Judge who decreed the suit and granted to the plaintiffs' relief (1) and (3). Declaration regarding the ownership of the crop had been rendered unnecessary by the removal of the crop after the institution of the suit.

(3.) For a proper appreciation of the question of jurisdiction which, as I have stated, is the only question involved in this appeal and for a correct understanding of the basis on which the decisions of this Court relating to the question have proceeded it is necessary to have a comparative view of the provisions in regard to this matter in the various Tenancy Acts and in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.