Dismissed

Hussain Ahmad v. Rafeeq Ahmad (Deceased) and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2018SAPL/954/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged the reversal of a civil suit regarding agricultural land. The court held the suit was not maintainable in civil court due to Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, dismissing the appeal and affirming the order to file in revenue court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; original suit remains barred in civil court.

Hussain Ahmad Vs Rafeeq Ahmad (Deceased) and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 954 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Hussain Ahmad Respondent :- Rafeeq Ahmad (Deceased) And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anupam Kulshreshtha,Satyendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th July, 2018 and 20th July, 2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Meerut in civil appeal no. 124 of 2016, Rafeeq Ahmad (since deceased) and Others v. Hussain Ahmad, whereby decree of the trial court dated 30th May, 2016 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Sardhana, Meerut has been reversed and thus original suit no. 36 of 1999 has been dismissed.

¶6

The argument advanced on behalf of the counsel for the appellant is that plaintiff/appellant has set up his claim over the property of Rafeeq Ahmad on the basis of will executed by Ashiq Ali, his grandfather, in his favour and thus he filed a suit questioning the sale deed executed by the Rafeeq Ahmad, admittedly, in respect of his own share (though claimed under will by appellant) in favour of his daughters.

¶7

The trial court had decreed the suit ex parte . However, on appeal being preferred, the court below considered the various issues including issue of maintainability of suit under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is admitted fact to the parties that the land in question is an agricultural holding and it is also fact established that the present appellant who is plaintiff in suit, is not recorded tenure holder. So even while questioning the sale deed in effect, he seeking a declaratory decree in respect of agricultural holdings which are land in suit. It is well settled law that any declaratory rights in respect of agricultural land, the suit is always maintainable in the revenue court and there is clear bar for filing civil suit vide Section 331 of the the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

¶8

The lower appellate court has recorded categorical finding to the effect that land being agricultural land suit was not maintainable and it is very much open for the appellant to file suit under Section 229 B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It has come on record that plaintiff/appellant had admitted this fact that he was to prefer civil suit under Section 229 B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in order to seek appropriate relief in respect of the land in suit.

¶9

On being confronted with the above question, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the land being agricultural holding and that he being not recorded, the case stands covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Sri Ram and Another v. 1st Additional District Judge and Others, 2001 AB C.J. Page 497 . However, he says that it would have been case where the plaint ought to have been returned and the court should not have decided various issues on merits and since issues have been dealt with on merits, it will prejudice his case before revenue court.

¶10

In view of the clear legal position as emerging in the present appeal, coupled with the fact that plaintiff/appellant is not recorded over the land in question which is an agricultural holding , no interference is called for with findings so returned by the lower appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.

¶11

It is always open for the plaintiff/appellant to seek appropriate remedy under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, if so advised. Needless to say that in the event of such suit being filed, the same shall be dealt with on its own merits without being influenced by the findings recorded by the courts below in civil appeal no.124 of 2016.

¶12

The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.10.2018/Sanjeev

Hussain Ahmad v. Rafeeq Ahmad (Deceased) and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hussain Ahmad v. Rafeeq Ahmad (Deceased) and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fireram and 5 Others Vs Smt. Sushila and 14 Others

Jagmindar Singh and 3 Others Vs Smt. Sushila and 14 Others

Christian Hospital Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajesh Kumar Jain and Another Vs Sulahkul Sehkari Awas Samiti and 7 Others

Rajendra Yadav and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Shukla and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and another