1 and 2 filed a suit No.157 of 1973 for posses sion of the said property in the companyrt of Civil Judge, Varanasi against the appellants wherein it was alleged that Aparbal Singh, father of appellant number1, and Chandra Deep Singh deceased , who was appellant number2, in the appeal and is number represented by his legal representatives, was in possession of the said property as a care taker and he was managing the same of behalf of the plaintiffs and after the death of Aparbal Singh, appellants number.1 and 2 companytinued in possession of the same but they did number vacate the said property in spite of promises and on the other hand, they got their names entered in the records in respect of the said property.
The defendants appellants produced extract of Khatauni for the year 1377 Fasli Ex.
It was stated that the total area of the disputed property is 4 Bighas 10 biswas 2.92 acres out of which the residential house, pucca well and the land appurtenant to the house companyer in area of 10 Biswas and the rest of the land measuring about 4 Bighas was being culti vated by the defendants.
While dealing with the said report of the Amin, the Civil Judge observed that under law if the land appurtenant to a building is being used for agricultural purposes, it will number lose its natured of being land appur tenant to building.
Yogeshwar Prasad Mrs.Rani Chhabra and Ms.Rachana Gupta for the Respondents The judgement of the companyrt was delivered by C.AGRAWAL,J.This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated April 2,1980.It raises the question whether the civil companyrt has jurisdiction to decide the issue whether the land in dispute in a suit or proceeding before it is a abadi land or some other land.
3 and 4, having equal share in the land became sirdars and after the death of Aparbal Singh, Alpa nath is in possession as owner Sirdar of the said land.
It involves the interpretation of section 331 A of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and land reforms Act.1950 P.Act No.1 of 1951 hereinafter referred to asthe Act.
It was also claimed that the entire area companyes within the definition of land since numberdeclara tion was made under section 143 of the Act.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Civil Judge, the appellants filed a revision in the High Court which was dismissed by the High Court.
A1 wherein the plaintiffs have been recorded as bhumidar of the suit property.
Form the judgment and order dated 2.4.1980 of the Allaha bad high companyrt in civil revision No 3770 of 1978.
141/176 177 situate within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Varanasi.
The said land companysists of a resi dential house, Shiwala temple , pucca well and open land enclosed by a boundary wall.
5 and 6 which are as under Issue No.5 Is suit land agricultural land as defined in U.P. Act, 1951 ?
It was also claimed that Aparbal Singh and Alpanath Singh, father of defendants number.
The plaintiffs sought a decree for ejectment as well as pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation.
In the written statement, it was claimed that the suit was number maintainable in the civil companyrt inasmuch as it related to agricultural land.
The dispute relates to a plot of land bearing settle ment No.
It appears that the property in dispute was also inspected by the Amin, who prepared a map and submitted his report wherein it was stated that the suit property is enclosed by a boundary wall and land appurtenant to the building has been shown as being used for agricultural purposes also.
After referring to the definition of land companytained in Section 3 1 0 of the said Act, the Civil Judge ob served that the land occupied by building or appurtenant thereto was excluded from the said definition and, there fore, the disputed property did number companye within the defini tion of land as defined in the U.P.Tenancy Act and was abadi and it was number land as defined in the Act and the revenue companyrts have got numberjurisdiction and the suit companyld be entertained by the Civil Court.
In the municipal records, it is numbered as 18/106, Mohalla Sarang Talab, Varanasi.
The companyies of the revenue record Exs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil appeal number3785 of 1983.
In the view of the said pleadings, the Civil Judge framed Issues Nos.
P.Goyal T.N.singh B.M.Sharma and S.N.Singh for the Appeal lants.
2 to 5 were also produced.
The said issues were tried as preliminary issues and were decided in favour of the plaintiffs respondents and against the appellants by the Civil Judge I, Varanasi by his order dated September 14, 1978.
The civil Judge held that the said entries were useless and numberreliance companyld be placed on them.
The said suit was companytested by the defendants.
Respond ents Nos.
Issue No.6 Is the suit triable by this Court so far as suit land is companycerned ?
