Uttarakhand High Court
Chandra Mohan Singh Panwar vs Kedar Singh Danu on 30 April, 2026
2026:UHC:3306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
First Appeal No. 185 of 2018
Chandra Mohan Singh Panwar .... Appellant
Versus
Kedar Singh Danu ......... Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. M. S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. B. S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondent.
———————————————————————-
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral)
The present First Appeal has been preferred by
the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree
dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Pauri Garhwal in Original Suit No. 06/2016
(Chandra Mohan Singh Panwar Vs. Kedar Singh Danu),
whereby, while deciding preliminary issue no. 4 the trial
court has held that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear
the suit.
2. In brief, the suit for perpetual injunction and
possession was instituted before the Court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Pauri Garhwal by the plaintiff with the
pleadings that he is the bhumidhar of Khet Nos. 677 and
678, Khata No. 82, measuring 300 square meters,
situated at Village Ganganali, Patti Katalsyu, Tehsil
Srinagar. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had purchased
the said land vide registered sale deed dated 15th July,
1
2026:UHC:3306
2004 from one Durga Prasad, which was duly registered
in the office of Sub-Registrar, Srinagar on the same date.
It was further pleaded that the defendant had purchased
an area of 400 square metres within Khet Nos. 677 and
678 of Khata No. 82 vide a registered sale deed dated
15th July, 2004 from the same vendor, namely Durga
Prasad, which was also registered in the office of Sub-
Registrar, Srinagar. It was next averred in the plaint that
taking advantage of the plaintiff’s absence, the defendant,
a resident of Srikot Ganganali, illegally took possession of
the plaintiff’s land on 4th June, 2015, raised the height
of the boundary wall, and put up a lock on the gate
thereof. The said fact came to the knowledge of the
plaintiff on 1st July, 2015, when he came to Srinagar to
look after his land. Despite objections raised by the
plaintiff and repeated requests made by him, the
defendant neither vacated the disputed land nor removed
his unauthorized possession. It was also pleaded that the
defendant had no right to interfere with the plaintiff’s
peaceful possession over the suit property. Accordingly,
the suit was instituted seeking reliefs of permanent
injunction and possession over the land in question.
3. The aforesaid suit was registered as Original
Suit No. 6 of 2016, Chandramohan Singh Panwar vs.
Kedar Singh Danu. The defendant/respondent contested
the suit by filing his written statement, wherein the
averments made in the plaint were denied. In the written
statement, particularly in paragraph no.18 of the
additional pleas, it was pleaded that the suit property is
agricultural land recorded in Khata No. 14 and Khata No.
82 of Village Srikot Ganganali. It was further contended
that the said land falls within the definition of “land”
2
2026:UHC:3306
under Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, as applicable to Uttarakhand. It was
specifically pleaded that the principal relief sought in the
suit is restoration of possession of agricultural land and,
therefore, the suit ought to have been instituted before
the competent revenue court. Consequently, it was
contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the suit.
4. In view of the rival pleadings, the trial court,
vide order dated 13.06.2018, framed as many as five
issues and issue nos. 3 & 4 were to be heard as
preliminary issues first. Issue No. 4 was framed as
follows:
“Whether the Court has jurisdiction to
entertain and decide the present suit?”
5. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to
mention that on 8th August, 2018, the trial court heard
the parties on Issue No. 4 pertaining to the jurisdiction of
the Court.
6. The trial court considered the submission
made on behalf of the defendant that the disputed land is
recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records and
falls within the definition of “land” under Section 3(14) of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in
short “UPZA & LR Act”). It was, contended that since the
plaintiff had also sought the relief of possession, the civil
court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
7. The trial court also considered the submission
advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that the disputed land
does not fall within the ambit of Section 3(14) of the U.P.
3
2026:UHC:3306
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, as the same
is not being used for agricultural purposes or for any
purpose connected with agriculture. It was further
submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that in view of Section
331-A of the UPZA & LR Act, an inquiry on the said issue
was necessary.
8. Considering the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties, the trial court deemed it proper to
frame an issue with regard to Section 3(14) of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and to refer
the matter to the Assistant Collector for determination as
to whether the disputed land is agricultural land within
the meaning of Section 3(14) of the UPZA & LR Act and
whether the same is being used for agricultural
purposes. Accordingly, the following issue was framed:
“Whether the disputed land is agricultural land
under Section 3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and whether
the same is being used for agricultural
purposes?”
9. A copy of the said order along with the plaint
and details of the disputed land was transmitted to the
Assistant Collector for submitting his report on the
aforesaid issue, namely, whether the disputed land was
being used for agricultural purposes or not. The matter
was fixed for 21st August, 2018.
10. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 8th
August, 2018, the Assistant Collector, Srinagar
conducted an inquiry through the Tehsildar, Srinagar
and obtained a spot inspection report dated 18th August,
2018.
4
2026:UHC:3306
11. Vide report dated 18.08.2018, the Assistant
Collector, Srinagar reported that as per the inquiry
conducted by the Tehsildar, Srinagar, after due
verification, the disputed land bearing Khasra Nos. 677
and 678 was found to be agricultural land. It was further
reported that on the spot, the family of Shri Kedar Singh
Danu had sown vegetables over the disputed land and
that fruit-bearing trees such as banana and lemon were
also standing thereon. Thus, the disputed land was
found to be used for agricultural purposes.
12. On 21st August, 2018, when the matter was
taken up, the aforesaid report of the Assistant Collector,
Srinagar was found on record and was marked as Paper
Nos. 61 Ga/1 and 61 Ga/2. Records bear that neither of
the parties raised any objection to the said report and
both parties submitted that Issue No. 4 may be decided
on the basis of the said report.
13. While deciding Issue No. 4, the trial court took
note of the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties.
14. On behalf of the defendant, it was submitted
that since the disputed land is recorded as agricultural
land in the revenue records and the plaintiff himself has
pleaded in the plaint that the suit property is in
possession of the defendant, coupled with the fact that
the plaintiff has also sought the relief of possession, the
suit is barred under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
15. On behalf of the plaintiff, it was contended that
apart from possession, a relief of injunction had also
5
2026:UHC:3306
been sought and, therefore, the suit was maintainable
before the civil court.
16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties,
the trial court considered that as per Section 9 of the
Code of Civil Procedure civil court has the jurisdiction to
entertain all suits of civil nature unless expressly or
impliedly barred and Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act expressly bars the
jurisdiction of the civil court in matters specifically
triable by the revenue courts.
17. As per the said provision, in matters
enumerated in Column 3 of Schedule II, only the court
mentioned in Column 4 shall have jurisdiction. Thus, the
jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in such matters.
From a perusal of Schedule II, it is clear that at Serial No.
24, a suit for possession of agricultural land under
Section 209 of the UPZA & LR Act can only be instituted
before the Court of Assistant Collector, First Class.
18. The trial court thereafter considered whether
the disputed land is agricultural land. It noted that the
plaintiff, in the plaint itself, had averred that the
disputed land is recorded in the name of the bhumidhar
in Khatauni Khata No. 82, Khet Nos. 677 and 678. In
addition thereto, a report was called for from the
Assistant Collector, Srinagar as to whether the disputed
land was agricultural land within the meaning of Section
3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act and whether the same was being used for
agricultural purposes.
19. Pursuant thereto, report marked as Paper Nos.
61 Ga/1 and 61 Ga/2 was submitted, wherein it was
6
2026:UHC:3306
reported that the disputed land situated in Khasra Nos.
677 and 678 is agricultural land, on which vegetables
and fruit-bearing trees are standing, and the same is
being used for agricultural purposes. On the basis of the
said report, the trial court concluded that the disputed
land is agricultural land and is being used for
agricultural purposes. The trial court next proceeded to
consider whether the relief sought by the plaintiff is
triable by the revenue court. In the plaint, under Relief
‘A’, the plaintiff had sought permanent injunction,
whereas under Relief ‘B’, he had sought possession.
20. Relying upon the Full Bench judgment of the
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram
Awalamb and others, vs. Jata Shankar and others,
reported in AIR 1969 Allahabad 526, the trial court
observed that where the principal relief is triable by the
revenue court, the suit falls within the jurisdiction of the
revenue court and the civil court lacks jurisdiction.
Conversely, where the principal relief is triable by the
civil court, the civil court would have jurisdiction to
entertain the suit. The trial court further held that in the
present case, the plaintiff himself had averred that the
defendant had taken possession of the disputed land.
Therefore, the principal relief sought was restoration of
possession, whereas the relief of permanent injunction
was merely ancillary in nature.
21. Accordingly, upon such analysis, the trial
court held that since a suit for possession of agricultural
land is triable by the Court of Assistant Collector, First
Class, the jurisdiction of the civil court stands barred
under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act. Consequently, the trial court came to
7
2026:UHC:3306
the conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the
suit, and Issue No. 4 was decided against the plaintiff,
the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff.
22. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order
dated 21st August, 2018, the instant first appeal has
been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant.
23. Assailing the impugned judgment and order
dated 21st August, 2018, learned counsel for the
appellant, Shri M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Pauri Garhwal is wholly erroneous and
contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
as well as Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, and therefore deserves to be set
aside.
24. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, at
the outset, drew the attention of the Court to paragraph
1 of the plaint and submitted that the plaintiff is a
recorded tenure holder who had purchased the land in
question by virtue of a registered sale deed. Referring to
the reliefs sought in the plaint, he submitted that the
first relief pertains to perpetual injunction, whereas the
second relief pertains to possession.
25. Based on the aforesaid, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that since relief of injunction was
also one of the reliefs sought in the plaint by the
plaintiff/appellant, the impugned judgment and order
dated 21st August, 2018 is wholly erroneous. In support
of his submissions, he placed reliance upon a judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in First
8
2026:UHC:3306
Appeal No. 60 of 2004, Kulwant Kaur Sidhu Vs. Smt.
Rahiman Bai Guddi, decided on 10th April, 2006.
26. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant
drew the attention of this Court to paragraphs 6 and 7 of
the said judgment, which read as under:-
“6……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………..
There is no doubt that remedy of injunction is
not available in the revenue court. The trial
court has decided issue No.2 in favour of the
plaintiff on the ground that the relief of
injunction was not available before the revenue
court. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued
that under the color of the injunction, a
remedy which was available before the revenue
court, cannot be sought from the civil court. It
is further contended on behalf of the appellant
that the title of the plaintiff is disputed by the
defendant, as such, the question of title which
can be got declared from the revenue court,
cannot be got so declared from the civil court
by seeking relief of injunction. Had the plaintiff
been not a recorded tenure holder in respect of
the land for which she has sought relief of
injunction, the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant could be accepted.
But in Para-1 of the plaint itself, plaintiff has
alleged that she is a recorded tenure holder
and in possession of land of plot No. 25/3 and
46/11, shown with letters ‘Aa’ ‘Ba’ ‘Sa’ ‘Da’ in
the plaint map. In support of said plea, the
copies of the revenue papers- Khasra and9
2026:UHC:3306Khatauni, have been filed by the plaintiff apart
from getting witnesses examined orally. As
such, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has
sought declaration of title under grab of
injunction.
7. In Ram Avalambh Vs. Jata Shankar &
others 1968 Revenue Decisions 470 (Full
Bench), it has been clarified by the Allahabad
High Court that where the plaintiff is not a
recorded tenure holder and seeks relief of
injunction, it can be said that he is seeking
declaration of title but where he is a recorded
tenure holder, it cannot be said that the suit is
not within the jurisdiction of civil court for
granting relief of injunction in respect of
agricultural land.”
27. Placing reliance upon paragraphs 6 and 7 of
the aforesaid judgment, he submitted that in the present
case, as averred in paragraph 7 of the plaint, the
plaintiff/appellant is a recorded tenure holder and,
therefore, the relief of injunction can only be granted by
the civil court. He further submitted that since the
plaintiff had also sought the relief of injunction, the
finding recorded by the trial court that the suit ought to
have been instituted before the competent revenue court
is highly erroneous and, therefore, the impugned
judgment and order deserves to be set aside. Referring
further to paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment, he
submitted that where the plaintiff is a recorded tenure
holder, it cannot be said that the suit is not within the
jurisdiction of the civil court for granting relief of
injunction in respect of agricultural land.
10
2026:UHC:3306
28. Per contra, learned counsel for the
defendant/respondent submitted that the principal relief
sought in the plaint is restoration of possession and that
admittedly the disputed property is agricultural land. It
was further submitted that the judgment of the trial
court is just and proper, and that the trial court has
rightly came to the conclusion that the suit of the
plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and that
the proper remedy available to the plaintiff is before the
revenue court. He further contended that the principal
relief apparent from the relief clause is the relief of
possession and, therefore, the impugned judgment and
order are perfectly justified.
29. On consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, as well as the impugned
judgment/order dated 21st August, 2018, the only point
for determination that arises in the instant first appeal is:
“Whether, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the suit instituted by the
plaintiff for injunction and possession was
maintainable before the civil court?”
30. After hearing the rival submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, this Court is called upon to
determine whether the civil court, where the suit for
injunction and possession was instituted, had
jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not.
31. For deciding the aforesaid point for
determination, it would be apt to examine the plaint,
since the issue can only be adjudicated by reference to
the averments made therein and the reliefs sought.
11
2026:UHC:3306
32. A perusal of the plaint reveals that, in
paragraph 1, the plaintiff has pleaded that he is the
owner of 300 square meters of land situated in Khet Nos.
677 and 678 of Khata No. 82, Village Ganganali, Tehsil
Srinagar, which he had purchased by virtue of a
registered sale deed dated 15th July, 2004.
33. In the plaint, the plaintiff has categorically
averred that the defendant has taken possession of his
land by raising a boundary wall and by locking the gate.
34. A perusal of the relief clause further reveals
that the plaintiff has sought relief of permanent
injunction as well as possession. So far as the written
statement of the defendant/respondent is concerned, the
relevant contention is contained in paragraph 18 thereof,
wherein it has been categorically pleaded that the suit
property is agricultural land recorded in Khata Khatauni
No. 14 and Khata Khatauni No. 82 of Village Srikot
Ganganali.
35. It has further been pleaded that under Section
3(14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, as applicable to Uttarakhand, agricultural land falls
within the definition of “land”, and since the principal
relief sought by the plaintiff is recovery of possession, the
suit ought to have been instituted before the competent
revenue court. It was, therefore, contended that the civil
court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that
the suit was not maintainable.
36. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid categorical
pleadings regarding lack of jurisdiction of the civil court,
Issue No. 4 came to be framed by the trial court as
follows:
12
2026:UHC:3306
“Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the
present suit?”
37. It is also borne out from the record that in
terms of Section 331-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, the trial court, after framing an
issue as to whether the disputed land is agricultural land
under Section 3(14) of the Act and whether the same is
being used for agricultural purposes, called for a report
from the Assistant Collector, Srinagar.
38. In pursuance thereof, an inquiry was
conducted by the Assistant Collector, Srinagar through
the Tehsildar, Srinagar, and upon submission of the
report, it was found that the disputed land was, at
present, being used for agricultural purposes.
39. After receipt of the aforesaid report of the
Assistant Collector, Srinagar, the trial court considered
Issue No. 4 and, after analyzing the provisions of Section
9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Serial No. 24 of
Schedule II of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, and also taking into consideration the
report of the Assistant Collector, Srinagar as well as the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case Ram
Awalamb and others Vs. Jata Shankar and others, came
to the conclusion that the principal relief sought by the
plaintiff in the plaint is the relief of possession.
40. The trial court further held that since relief of
possession of agricultural land can only be sought before
the competent revenue court, the civil court lacked
jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same was
barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act.
13
2026:UHC:3306
41. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has
primarily relied upon the relief of injunction sought in the
plaint and has further placed reliance upon the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 60
of 2014, Kulwant Kaur Sidhu vs. Smt. Rahiman Bai
Guddi. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has
placed reliance upon paragraphs 6 and 7 of the aforesaid
judgment.
42. A perusal of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the
judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court
would reveal that the ratio laid down therein is that a
recorded tenure holder can maintain a suit for
injunction. However, the said judgment is not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
inasmuch as, in the present matter, two reliefs have been
sought, namely, relief of permanent injunction as well as
relief of possession.
43. Upon consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is evident from the plaint
that the principal relief sought in the plaint is the relief of
possession, whereas the relief of injunction is merely
ancillary in nature and can only be granted if the
principal relief is granted.
44. Therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the
appellant would not be applicable in the present case.
45. On behalf of the defendant/respondent, it has
been argued that admittedly the land in question is
agricultural land, which stands duly verified by the
report of the Assistant Collector, and since the principal
relief sought is possession, Issue No. 4 has rightly been
14
2026:UHC:3306
decided by the trial court and warrants no interference
by this Court.
46. Reference in the instant case is also required
to be made to the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad
High Court in the case Ram Awalamb and others Vs.
Jata Shankar and others, reported in AIR 1969
Allahabad 526 (V 56 C 100) Full Bench, wherein
paragraph 62 of the said judgment is particularly
relevant which reads as under:-
“62. The case law in this Court on this point
might be classified under the following two
heads:-
(a) Where several reliefs closely connected with
each other can be claimed on the basis of the
cause of action set forth in the plaint it has to
be examined which of them is the main relief
and which others are ancillary reliefs. If upon a
consideration of facts constituting the cause of
action the main relief is such which can be
granted by the civil court the suit will be
cognizable in the civil court which will proceed
to grant the ancillary reliefs also. On the other
hand if the main relief is specifically cognizable
by a revenue court only but ancillary reliefs
may be such as could be granted by the civil
court the matter was cognizable only by a
revenue court.
(b) The pith and substance of the allegation
made in the plaint constituting the cause of
action must be scrutinized in order to
determine whether or not if on the same cause
of action any adequate or satisfactory
alternative remedy could be available to the
plaintiff in the revenue court. If the answer to
the scrutiny be in the affirmative, then the suit
brought in the civil court must fail regardless
of the consideration that in respect of the15
2026:UHC:3306reliefs actually claimed the suit was on the face
of it cognizable by a civil court.”
47. In the said judgment, it has been held that
where the principal relief is specifically cognizable by the
revenue court, merely because certain ancillary reliefs
are also claimed, the suit would nonetheless remain
cognizable by the revenue court alone.
48. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Faqir (Dead) through Shyam
Deo vs. Kishori @ Lolloo and Another, reported in (1995) 4
SCC 533, is also very relevant.
49. In the said judgment, while analyzing Section
331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act and Entry No. 24 of Schedule II thereto, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had occasion to consider the issue in
detail. It was held in paragraph 14 of the said judgment
as follows:
“14………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………….
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 the court of the Assistant Collector, First
Class, which is described as the Court of
Original Jurisdiction. In view of Section 331(1)
quoted above it is evident that the suit made
cognizable by a special court, i.e., the Court of
the Assistant Collector, First Class, could not
be filed in a civil court and the civil court was,
therefore, inherently lacking in jurisdiction to
entertain such a suit.
It is unfortunate 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 to16
2026:UHC:3306the conclusion that the period of limitation was
the one laid down by the rules under U.P. Act
No. 1 of 1951. Since the civil court which
entertained the suit suffered from an inherent
lack of jurisdiction, the present appeal filed by
the plaintiffs will have to be dismissed.”
50. Thus, upon an overall consideration of the
facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Full
Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case
of Ram Awalamb and others (supra), as well as the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Faqir (dead) through Shyam Deo (supra), it is evident that
the principal relief sought by the plaintiff in the plaint is
the relief of possession, whereas the relief of injunction is
merely ancillary in nature.
51. Accordingly, the civil court/trial court did not
have jurisdiction to entertain the said suit, and Issue No.
4 with regard to the jurisdiction of the civil court has
rightly been decided by the trial court and warrants no
interference.
52. Therefore, the point for determination is
answered to the effect that since the principal relief
sought in the plaint was possession, and relief of
injunction was an ancillary relief, the suit would be
cognizable only by the competent revenue court.
53. Consequently, the civil court lacks jurisdiction
to entertain the suit, and Issue No. 4 has rightly been
decided by the trial court.
54. Thus, the present first appeal lacks merit and
deserves to be dismissed.
55. Accordingly, the first appeal is dismissed.
17
2026:UHC:3306
56. Let the original record be remitted back to the
trial court.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
30.04.2026
BS
BALWANT
Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2
eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5
185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT
SINGH
Date: 2026.05.05 18:07:20 +05’30’
18
