JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The order dated 8.9.1997 passed by the Civil Judge. Senior Division. IVth Court, Mathura In Original Suit No. 598 of 1987, holding ' Issue Nos. 2 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff was affirmed by an order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Mathura. In Civil Revision No. 215 of 1997. The said two issues which were decided as preliminary issue involved the question as to whether the suit was barred by reason of Section 331 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. These two issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit was not barred by Section 331 of the Act and the suit is maintainable before the civil court.
2. Sri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the land was not residential plot and was in fact agricultural plot, therefore, the dispute Involved in the suit is barred by provisions of Section 331 of the Act. According to him the suit for Injunction Involved declaration of title and, therefore, it is well within the mischief of Section 331 of the Act. He further contends that the relief prayed for in the present suit cannot be granted without adjudication of the title to the property and declaration thereof in favour of the plaintiff. He also relied on various decisions in support of his contention, to which reference shall be made at appropriate stage.
3. Heard Sri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Janardan Sahai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of caveator opposite party at length.
4. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff had prayed for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of suit property and for possession thereof. The foundation of the suit was laid on the basis of sale deed executed by the defendant-petitioner herein, on 15.9.1975 for the purposes of construction of a house, being plot No. 10 by carving out a particular piece of land, of which possession was delivered to the plaintiff, but subsequently the defendant had illegally constructed a wall on the part of land and had entered into possession thereof.
5. Sri Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the petitioner-defendant had sold the property to the plaintiff opposite party by virtue of the said sale-deed. But according to him, the land being agricultural property, proceeding in relation thereto can be entertained by the revenue court and not by civil court. The submission appears to be wholly misconceived for two reasons. The first reason is that the defendant himself having sold the land to the plaintiff, he is estopped from preventing the plaintiff from possession of the property and he cannot maintain his possession in respect thereof. After the sale deed was executed, the defendant had no right, interest or title in the said property and, therefore, he cannot raise any claim, which requires adjudication of title to the property. Secondly, he himself having carved out into several plots and having sold the same for the purposes of construction of a house, it is not open to him to say that it was not made for construction of a house and the land was agricultural land. He himself having sold it. he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. Inasmuch as even assuming that the land is agricultural land but the defendant himself had sold the same to the plaintiff whatever might be the purpose, he cannot now contend after having sold the property to the plaintiff so as to use the land for a particular purpose. His right, interest or title having vested In the plaintiff he cannot raise such question.
6. The suit is a simple suit for injunction and possession. The foundation being on the basis of transfer by the defendant to the plaintiff, it involves no adjudication of right, title or interest between the parties. The defendant himself having sold the property to the plaintiff he is estopped from disputing the title of the plaintiff which he himself transferred to him through a sale deed. Section 331 of the Act prescribes that no proceeding or suit can be maintained except before appropriate forum In respect of the prescribed relief as provided in Schedule II of the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this suit comes within the purview of Serial No. 34 of Schedule II relating to the suit for declaration of right within the ambit of Sections 229, 229B and 229C of the said Act. From the plaint, it does not appear that any relief for declaration has been sought for. Then again the very pleading and the relief claimed shows that it is not a dispute within the meaning of Sections 229. 229A and 229B of the Act. Section 229 deals with declaratory suit, while Section 229A refers to trespass of holding or land of Gaon Sabha or local authority, and Section 229B deals with declaratory suit by person claiming to be an asami of a holding or part thereof. The present suit does not fall within the ambit of any of the said Sections. Then he claimed it to be within serial No. 1 relating to recovery of possession within the ambit of Section 12 of the said Act. Section 12 deals with thekedars lo be hereditary tenants In certain circumstances. Here in the present case, the plaintiff did not claim to be hereditary tenants nor sought to establish his right as thekedar. On the other hand, he claimed his right on the basis of sale deed.
7. My attention has not been drawn to any other serial numbers in which the present suit could be fit in. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it fits in Serial No. 23 which deals with the suit for injunction or for repair of the waste or damages within meaning of Section 208. Section 208 deals with the cases where instead of asking for compensation, suit may be instituted for injunction with or without compensation or for compensation and repair of the waste or damage. The frame of the suit does not indicate that it fits in with such nature of suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner continues to search out serial number in the Court to find out as to whether his suit could be fit in any of the serial numbers of Schedule II, in vain.
8. Therefore, the present suit does not come within ambit of Section 331 of the Act and as such relief can only be granted by the civil court. All reasoning contrary thereto cannot be sustained.
9. The decision in the case of Vijai Singh v. IIad Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1982 ALJ 725. cited by Sri Chaturvedi, cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Inasmuch as in the said suit declaration of the right tn respect of certain agricultural land seeking cancellation of sale deed was sought lor, a fact which is altogether distinguishable with those of the present one.
10. The decision in the case of Chandrika Misif and others v. Bhaiyalal 1973 RD 365, is also not applicable in the present case, inasmuch as in the said case suit in respect of bhumidhari plots was filed by next reversloner, praying for permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession. Here the suit is not by next reversioner and, therefore, ratio decided in the said case cannot be attracted to the facts of this case.
11. The decision in the case of Mohd. Umar Khan v. Idris Mohd. Ghani and others, AIR 1980 All 89, cited by Sri Chaturvedi, also does not help him -since in the said case the suit was filed by joint grove-holder against the other Joint-holder for mandatory injunction restraining him from interfering with his possession. In which relief of injunction cannot be granted unless there was declaration of title which is not the case in the present one.
12. The decision in the case of Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shanker, 1968 RD 470, also does not help the petitioner. Inasmuch as in the said case if main relief was cognizable by revenue court and ancillary relief by civil court then the suit is cognizable by revenue court and if main relief is cognizable by civil court and ancillary one by revenue court, then the suit is cognizable by civil court. This was the ratio decided therein. In the present case the main relief can only be granted by civil court, as has been observed in the earlier part of this judgment and, therefore, the said decision does not help the petitioner.
13. The decision in the case of Cfiandrika Singh and others v. Raja Vishwanath Pratap Singh and another, AIR 1992 SC 1318, also does not help the learned counsel for the petitioner since the question involved therein, the main suit is cognizable within the ambit of Section 331A of the said Act which relates to change of user of agricultural land if it is raised in any suit. As observed in the earlier part of this judgment the defendant having sold the property to plaintiff, he is estopped from raising any question with regard to manner of use of the property by the plaintiff and, therefore, the said question may be ancillary but cannot be the main relief and, therefore, by reason of the decision in Ram Awalamb (supra) the suit is very much maintainable in the civil court.
14. In the case of Chandriko Singh (supra), the question was to be determined under Sections 143 and 144 of U. P- Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which is not the question in the present suit. Section 143 of the Act deals with the use of holding for industrial or residential purposes and Section 144 deals with use of land for agricultural purposes. But in the present case as observed in the earlier part of this judgment the defendant having been estopped from raising all these questions, after having sold the property to the defendant, these questions are no more germane to the issue involved. Therefore, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the contention of Sri Chaturvedi, as has been raised by him.
15. Before parting with the case, it may be observed that whatever observations have been made with regard to the facts of the case are tentative for the purposes of deciding the issue involved herein.
16. The writ petition thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.