Dismissed

Jai Singh and Another v. Govind Singh Chauhan

Uttarakhand HC4 Mar 2014SA/17/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged the lower courts' decree for ejectment, citing lack of jurisdiction under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Court held the property was residential inhabited land and Civil Court had jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Decree and orders of Courts below upheld; Appellants granted one year to vacate premises by 03.03.2015.

Jai Singh and Another Vs Govind Singh Chauhan — Landlord and Tenant | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Second Appeal No. 17 of 2014

¶3

Sri Jai Singh and another …..Appellants/Defendants Versus Sri Govind Singh Chauhan ……..Respondent/Plaintiff

¶4

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral)

¶5

Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate, present for the appellants/defendants.

¶6

Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, present for the respondent/plaintiff.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the delay condonation application.

¶8

Delay Condonation application no.1269 of 2014 is allowed.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for both the parties on the second appeal and perused the record.

¶10

This is defendants’ second appeal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for ejectment from a property in which the present appellants were tenant. The suit was decreed. Appeal filed against the said decree has also been dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellants/defendants filed this second appeal.

¶11

The facts of the case are that appellant no. 1 is the son of the respondent/plaintiff and appellant no. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the plaintiff/respondent. The property in question is a structure where appellants reside. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the

¶12

¶13

property is residential accommodation and the Civil Court has jurisdiction in the matter and the plaintiff/respondent is the owner of the property.

¶14

Both the Courts below have held that the property belongs to the plaintiff and have also given their findings in favour of the plaintiff on all issues relevant for the determination of the case. The plaintiff has, thus, succeeded before both the Courts below both on facts as well as on law.

¶15

The petitioner before this Court now have framed, inter alia, substantial question of law that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter in view of Section 331 of the U.P. ZA & L.R. Act. Section 331 of the U.P.ZA&L.R. Act reads as under:-

¶16

“331.Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act.- (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in Column 3 thereof or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application:

¶17

Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect or any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II insofar as they relate to suits, applications or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof.

¶18

Explanation.- If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted.

¶19

¶20

(1-A) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (i), an objection, that a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II, or, as the case may be, a civil court, which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or, proceeding, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

¶21

(2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order or decree passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule aforesaid:

¶22

(3) An appeal shall lie from any decree or from an order passed under Section 47 or an order of the nature mentioned in Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) or in Order 43, Rule 1 of the First Schedule to that Code passed by a court mentioned in column No.4 of Schedule II to this Act in proceedings mentioned in Column 3 thereof to the court or authority mentioned in column No.5 thereof.

¶23

(4) A second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under sub-section (3), to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 6 of the Schedule aforesaid. 10. This issue was a preliminary issue and the learned Court below came to the conclusion and it is an “Abadi land” and Civil Court has jurisdiction in the matter.

¶24

In support of his case, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has placed reliance on the following cases:-

¶25

(i) Shri Ram and another Vs. 1st Addl. District Judge & others , 2001 (1) Supreme Court 706;

¶26

¶27

(ii) Kamla Prasad & others Vs. Sri Krishna Kant Pathak & others , 2007 (2) Supreme Court 173.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, thus, submits that a recorded tenure holder can file a suit for ejectment before the Civil Court.

¶29

Moreover, there is a residential structure on the said land. Therefore, Civil Court has jurisdiction in the matter and it cannot be said that the Civil Court was not having jurisdiction.

¶30

In view of the above, there is no question of law is now involved in the case, much less any substantial question of law.

¶31

The appellants are given one year’s time to vacate the premises.

¶32

Subject to the above modification, which only gives a breathing space of one year, considering that the appellants/defendants are afterall the son and daughterin-law respectively, of the respondent/plaintiff, the decree and the order of the Courts below are upheld, and the present appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellants/defendants are, however, granted one year’s time to vacate the premises. They shall vacate the premises on or before 03.03.2015.

¶33

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 04.03.2014

¶34

Jai Singh and Another v. Govind Singh Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Singh and Another v. Govind Singh Chauhan

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

Power Tranmission Corp. Of U.k. Ltd. Vs M/s R.s. Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Mahendra Singh Negi and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt Savitri Devi Rikhari Vs Niteshwar Kumar and Another

Ratan Lal Bali Vs Municipal Corporation Kashipur and Others

Satish Kumar Mishra and Others Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Trilok Singh Martolia Vs Om Prakash and Others