The High Court dismissed the second appeal regarding a declaration suit for bhumidhari rights, affirming that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction when the plaintiff is not the recorded tenureholder.
The second appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 263 of 2022
Appellant :- Tej Bahadur Yadav Respondent :- Mahaveer Yadav Counsel for Appellant :- Mata Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Swatantra Lata Yadav,Jai Prakash Yadav,Rakesh Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.
Vakalatnama of Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent is taken on record.
Heard Shri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
The instant second appeal is preferred against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Pratapgarh in Civil Appeal No.4 of 2018 (Tej Bahadur Yadav v. Mahaveer Yadav) and also against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) (F.T.C.) II Pratapgarh in Original Suit No.583 of 2009 (Tej Bahadur v. Mahaveer) whereby learned court below held that appellant/plaintiff is not the recorded tenureholder of Gata No.567 whereas land in question is recorded in the name of respondent/defendant. Learned court below had also framed the framed the issue as to whether the court of Civil Judge can try the suit? On this issue, learned court below held that this suit involves declaration of bhumidhari rights and the revenue court can decide the suit. The appellate court held that the plaint may be returned to file before the competent court.
From the perusal of plaint and record, it appears that plaintiff/appellant is not the recorded tenureholder of the land in question whereas the defendant/respondent is the recorded tenureholder, therefore, this appeal filed in the garb of declaration of bhumidhari right cannot be entertained and the learned lower court has rightly decided the appeal.
In view of the above, I do not find any force in the instant appeal.
The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.11.2022 Jyotsana
Digitally signed by JYOTSANA SINGH Date: 2022.11.03 16:57:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit for declaration of bhumidhari rights filed before a Civil Court can be entertained when the plaintiff is not the recorded tenureholder.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tej Bahadur Yadav
Mahaveer Yadav
Mohd. Aslam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
