Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. In the case of Mt. Ram Kuer V. Iqbal Narain Singh, AIR 1947 All 92 the plaintiff sought for a declaration that the decree passed by the Revenue Court, the ejectment proceedings in execution of it and the grant of the lease to defendant No. 1 were fraudulent and that the defendant No. 1 had acquired no title in them. A further relief for eviction of defendant No. 1 and possession of the land was also sought by the plaintiff. It was alleged that the plaintiff, who was a Purdahnashin lady, had entrusted the management of the property to the defendant No. 1, who was related to her. While she was away the thekedar of the village filed a suit for arrears of rent against the plaintiff and one Jangi and obtained a decree for the same. This decree was put to execution and the plaintiff and the said Jangi were evicted from the property. Subsequently the plaintiff brought a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that the rent decree and the ejectment proceedings in execution of it and the grant of the lease to another person were fraudulent and that the lessee did not acquire any title in them. In that suit the defendants contested the maintainability of the suit in the Civil Court and raised the question as to whether the suit was cognizable by the Civil or the Revenue Court. The Division Bench held that in determining the Jurisdiction of the Civil and Revenue Court the pith and substance of the relief and not its form should be looked into and that the grounds on which the relief was based were immaterial. The essence of the relief claimed by the plaintiff in that suit was considered to be a declaration of her tenancy rights and restoration of possession to her. It was observed that the allegations in the plaint, clearly amounted to the contention that she was dispossessed of the disputed land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law and thus the substance of the relief claimed fell within the purview of Sections 59 and 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and the suit was cognizable by a Revenue Court only. The Division Rench placed reliance On the case of Ram Diral Dubey v. Gajaraj Upadhaya, AIR 1935 All 499. It may be pointed out that in that case the plaintiff was dispossessed in the execution of the decree which was alleged to have been fraudulently obtained inasmuch as the plaintiffs address was wrongly given therein and she was never informed of the proceedings in that suit and as the allegations contained in the plaint clearly amounted to the contention that she was dispossessed of the land otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law the suit fell within the ambit of Sections 59 and 183 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. In the present case the plaintiff has no doubt alleged that she could not have any knowledge of the institution of the suit filed under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the court of the Judicial Officer, Balrampur, that she had not engaged any counsel to put in appearance in that case on her behalf and that she did not enter into any compromise in that case. She had also alleged that no summons were served on her and the decree was, therefore, fraudulently obtained. As the said decree would cast a cloud on her sirdari rights in respect of the plots of land in question it was necessary to have the same adjudged void. She, however, alleged herself to be in possession of the property and as such the only relief sought for by her was to adjudication of the invalidity of the said decree. The tilling reported in Mt. Ram Kuer's case (supra) would, therefore, not be applicable to the facts of the instant case.