CHANDRIKA SINGH AND ORS. versus RAJA VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 640 · Decided: 22-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. FATHIMA BEEVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDRIKA SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJA VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH AND ANR. 
APRIL 22, 1992 
B 
[M. FATHIMA BEEVI ANDS. C. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950: 
Sections 3( 14), 143, 144, 333( 1) and 331-A: Conditions of Applicability 
C of section 331-A-Land comprising of building and land surrounding the 
buildinJ;Whether falls within the definition 'land'-Jurisdiction over such 
matter~Whether vested with Civil Courts or Revenue Cowts. 
D 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: 
Section 115-Revision--Civil Court exercising Jurisdiction not vested in 
it by statute-I/legality committed in exercise of jurisdiction-Rectification of 
by High Court in exercise of its Revision Jurisdiction-Need for. 
Respondents filed a suit for possession of certain property, stating 
E 
that the father pf appellant Nos.I and 2 was in possession of the property 
as a care-taker and that after his death appellant Nos.I and 2 continued 
in possession of the same and did not vacate inspite of promises; instead 
they got their names entered in the records in respect of the property. The 
plaintiffs sought a.decree for ejectment as well as pendente lite and future 
F 
damages for use and occupation. The defendents-appellants contested the 
suit, claiming that it was not maintainable in the Civil Court inasmuch as 
it related to agricultural land. It was also claimed that the entire area came 
within the definition 'land' .since no declaration was made under section 
143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms ~ct, 1950. The Civil 
Judge observed that the land occupied by the building or appurtenant 
G thereto was excluded from the definition 'land' in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 
1939 and since the house was there even prior to the commencement of the 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the same is not 
applicable. .._e, therefore, held the land to be abadi land, the Revenue 
Courts had no jurisdiction over it and the Civil Court could entertain the 
H suit. 
640 
CHANDRIKA SINGH v. RAJA PRATAP SINGH 
641 
I 
1be appellants produced extracts· of the relevant Khatauni which A 
showed the plaintiff as bhumidhar of the suit property. The Civil Judge 
held that reliance could not be placed on these and observed that under 
the law if the land appurtenant to a building is being used for agricultural 
purposes it would not lose its nature of land appurtenant to building. 
The appellants preferred a Revision and the High Court dismissed 
the same. Against the High Court's order, the appellant preferred the 
present appeals by special leave. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that all the three 
conditim1s stipulated in section 331-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act, were fulfilled in this case; that no declaration has been 
made under section 143 or 144 of the Act in respect of the suit land; that 
the question whether the land was used or not for purpose of agriculture 
etc. ought to have been considered since the respondents claimed that it 
was abadi land; that there was no justification in ignoring the entry in the 
relevant Khatauni and entries in the revenue record; and that tlie Civil 
Judge had no jurisdiction to decide issue Nos.5 and 6. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that admittedly there 
B 
c 
I 
D 
was a building on the land in dispute and since the land surrounding the 
building was appurtenant to the building the entire area was abadi land. 
E 
"(_, 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. In order that section 33l~A of the U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 may be invoked three conditions 
must be satisfied, viz., (i) the suit must relate to land held by a bhumidhar; 
F 
(ii) th'! question whether the land in question is or is not used for purposes 
connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry should arise 
or be raised in the said suit; and (iii) a declaration has not been made in 
respect of such land under section 143 or section 144. [650 A-CJ 
1.2. In respect of Abadi land it is implied that the land is not being G 
used for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal 
husbandry and in view of the definition of 'land' contained in section 2(14) 
of the Act such land is not land for the purpose of the Act. In order to 
exclude the applicability of the Act on the ground that the land is Abadi 
land it is necessary to determine whether the said land is or is not being H, 
642 
SUPREME COURT RE

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.