290
CHANDRIKA MISIR & ANR.
_v._
BHAIYA LAL
_luly_ 31, 1973
LD. G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIR!SWAM!, JJ.J
_U.P._ _Zamirnlari Abolition_ _arnl_ _Larnl_ _Reforms Act,_ 1951 _and Rules-Sectio11s_
**209** _**and**_ _**331-Whether**_ _**Cii•il**_ _**Court had iurisdiction to entertain the**_ _**suit-Limi-**_
_**tation.**_
**Appellants brought this suit against the present respondent for possession** **of**
certain Bhumidhari plots. The plots had been purchased in the name of the
**appellant's uncle.** **After** **the** **death** **of** **the uncle who died issueless,** **the** **plots were**
recorded in the name of his widow. The widow died in 1948. The appellants
**as** **the** **next** **reversioners** **claimed-** **title** **to** **tl1e** **plots.** **The** **respondent** **contended** **that**
**the** **suit** **was** **barred** **by** **limitation.**
**The** **couits below** **were** **unanimously** **of** **the** **opinion** **that** **the** **plaintiffs** **had**
**title** **to** **the property** **and** **the** **defenElant** **had none. The leam:-d Munsiff** **h'Jwever**
dismissed the suits as being barred by limitation. In appeal, the learned Addi**tional Civil** **Judge** **reversed the finding** **and** **decreed the suit.** **In** **second appeal**
**the** **High Court** **was** **of** **the view that the period, Of** **limitation** **was** **not** **the** **one**
**which** **was** **prescribed under the Limitation** Act~ **but** **the** **one which** **was** **provided**
**in· Appendix 2** **of** **the U.P. Zamindari Abolition** **and** **l,and Reforms** **Ru1es,** **1952,**
which was 2 vears from 1-7-1952. Since the suit -was filed on 5-9-1955, it was
**barred** **by** **limitation.**
**Dismissing the** **appea1,**
HELD: (i) Sections 209 and 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
**Reforms Act 1951,** **when.** **read** **together,· showed that a suit, like the present one,**
**had to be** **fiJed** **in** **a Special Court created under the Act within a period** **of limita-**
**tion specially prescribed under** **the** **Rules made under the Act,** **and** **the** **jurisdic-**
**tion** **of** **the ordinary Civil Courts to entertain the suit** **was** **absolutely barred.**
1292CJ
**Since the Civil Court which entertained the suit suffered from** **an** **inherent**
**lack** **of** **jurisdiction because** **of** **special provisions** **of** **the U.P.** **1** **Zamindari Abo1i·**
!Ion and Land Reforms Act 1951, the present appeal filed by the appellant• had
to be dismissed. [2938)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :-Civil Appeal No. 2032 of
1968.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated January 31, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
2128 of 1963.
_Yogeshwar_ _Prasad_ and _M._ _Veerappa,_ for the appellants.
_Uma Mehta, S._ _K._ _Bagga_ and _S._ _Bagga;_ for the respondent.
The Judgment <:>f the Court was delivered by
## c
I)
E
F
G
PALEKAR. J .-This is an appeal by special leave against the
Judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court in Second Apoeal
No. 2128 of 1963. The plaintiffs brought the suit a~ainst one Bhaiya
Lal, the present respondent, in respect of certain Bhumidari plots.
The plots had been purchased in the name of one Markandey-the **H**
uncle of the plaintiffs. After the death of Markandey. who died without issue, the plots were recorded in the name of his widow Jagdamba.
Jagdamba died in 1948. The plaintiffs as the next reversioners claimed
A
B
### c
D
E
F
G
H
CHANDRIKA I', DHAI\'A LAL _(Palekar,_ J.) 291
title to the property. They alleged that the respondent was interfering with their p0ssession and hence they prayed for a permment in·
junction. In the alternative, they also asked for the relief of possession. The suit was filed on 5-9-1955.
Several pleas were taken on behalf of the defendant one of th~m
being a plea of limitation. The courts were unanimously of the
opinion that the plaintiffs, being the next heirs, had sufficient title to
the property while the defendant had none whatsoever. The learned
Munsif in whose court the suit was filed however, held that the suit
was barred by limitation. In appeal the learned Additional Civil Judge,
Varanasi, held that the plaintiffs claim was not barred by limitation.
Accordingly, possession was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.
Jn second appeal the High Court found that the question of limitation could not be properly determined unless there was a specific
finding on two issues one relating to the commencement of the possession of the plots in 1951-52. The finding on the second issue was
Chandrika Misir, at the time of filing the suit. The High Court re·
manded these two issues to the First Appellate Court for a finding.
The finding on the first issue was that the defendant took actual possession of the plots in 1951-52. The finding on the second issue was
that plaintiff No. 1 Chandrika Misir was a minor when Jagdamba
died in 1948 and that he attained majority in the year 1955 and
not before that.
When the case again came before the learned Chief Justice for
the disposal of the appeal, these findings were accepted as they were
findings of fact. The only point that the High Court had to decide
was whether the suit which bad been filed on 5-9-1955 i.e. the year
in which the plaintiff no. 1 had attained majority was in time, In
an ordinary suit filed in a Civil Court for possession on the ground
of dispossession the question of limitation, on the above facts, would
have hardly arisen. Jagdamba bad died in 1948 and plafotiff no. 1
the next reversioner came of age in 1955. The period of limitation
would be 12 years and the suit would be obviously in time. But the
High Court was of the view that the period of limitation was not
the one which was prescribed in the Limitation Ac.I but the one which
was laid down in the Appendix to The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 which was two years from
1-7-1952 which was the date of vesting under the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act No. 1 of 1951). The High
Court further held that the fact that the plaintiff no. 1 was a minor
at the time of filing of the suit did not help him because section 6
of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 did not govern suits falling under
U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951.
Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.
It is from this Order that the present appeal has been filed by
special leave. It is to be noticed that the suit had been filed in a
Civil Court· for possession and the Limitation Act will be the Act
which will govern such a suit It is not the case that U.P. Act
No. 1 of 1951 authorises the filing of the suit in a Civil Court and
prescribes a period of limitation for granting the relief of possession
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] 1 s.C.Jl..
superseding the one prescribed by the Limitation Act. It was, therefore, perfectly arguable that if the suit is one properly entertainable
by the Civil Court the period of limitation must be governed by the
provisions of the Limitation Act and no other. In that case there
would have been no alternative but to pass a decree for possession
in favour of the plaintiffs. But the unfortunate part of the whole
case is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction at all to entertain
the suit. It is true that such a contention with regard to the jurisdiction had not been raised by the defendant in the Trial Court but
where the court is inherently Jacking in jurisdiction the plea may be
raised at any stage, and, it is conceded by Mr. Yogheshwar Prasad,
even in execution proceedings on the ground that the decree was a
nullity. If one reads sections 209 and 331 of the U.P. Act No. 1
of 1951 together one finds that a suit like the one before us has
to be filed before a Special Court created under the Act within a
period of limitation specially prescribed mlder the roles made under
the Act and the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts is absolutely
barred. Section 209 so far as we are concerned reads as follows :
"209 Ejectment of persons occupying land without title
(1) A person taking or retaining possession of land other·
wise than in accordance with the provisions of the
law for the time being in force, and( a) where the land forms part of the holding of a
bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, without the consent
of such bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, and
#### (b) ............................. .
shall be liable to ejectment on the suit in cases referred to
in clause (a) above, of the bhumidhar, sirdar or asarni concerned,
and shall also be liable to pay damages.
(2) To every suit relating to a land referred to in clause
(a) of sub-section ( 1) the State Government shall
be impleaded as a necessary party."
In the present case it has been held that the defendant has been rethat the land is bhumidhari land and the plaintiffs are bhmnidhars.
taining possession of the land contrary to law being a trespasser;
Therefore, the suit was of a description falling under section 209.
Section 331 so far as it is relevant is as follows :
"331. Cognizance of suits, etc;., under this Act.
(1 ) Except as provided by or under this Act no Court
than a Court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall,
notwithstanding anythin~ contained in the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908, take cogniimce of any suit, application, or pro·
ceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof."
Schedule II at serial no. 24 shows that a suit for ejectment of persons occupying land without title under section 209 should be filed
in !he oourt of the Assistant Collector, Frrst Class, which is described as the Court of Original Jurisdiction. In view of Section
A
B
G
B
E
F
G
A
B
# c
CHANDRIKA _v._ GHAIYA LAL _(Palekar,_ J.) 293
331 (1) quoted above it is evident that the suit made cognizable by
a special court i.e. the Court of the Assistant Col1ector, First Class,
cowd not be filed in a Civil Court and the Civil Court was, therefore,
'inberentty lacking in jur1sdiotion to entertam such a suit. It is u,1fortu·
nate that . this position in law was not noticed in the several Courts
through which this litigation has passed, not even by the High Court
which had specifically come to the conclusion that the period of limitation was the one laid down by the rules under U.P. Act No. 1 of
1951. Sinoe the Civil Court which entertained, the suit suffered from.
an inherent lack of jurisdiction, the present appeal filed by the plain~
will have to be dismissed.
As regards costs, we do not think that this is a fit case in which
the defendant should get his costs in any of the courts. Though
he had no title to the property, he was trying to set up a title. But
his attempt was negatived by all the courts. He did not urge also
the contention with regard to the jurisdiction of the court at any
stage except . in this Court. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal
we further direct that the plaintiffs and the defendant shall bear their
own costs throughout.
_Appeal dismissed._
S. N.
