1972 (1) TMI 111 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the plaintiff is a bhumidhar of the land in suit.
2. Whether the suit is within time.
3. Whether the defendants are trespassers of the land in suit.
4. Whether the court-fee stamps are sufficient.
5. Whether the suit is cognizable by this court.
6. Whether the suit is bad for want of valid notice.
7. To what relief and damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled.
8. Whether the land in suit vested in Gram Samaj after the passing of Act I of 1951.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the plaintiff is a bhumidhar of the land in suit:

The Judicial Officer remitted this issue to the Munsif Gonda, who found that the plaintiff is not the bhumidhar of the suit land. Consequently, the Judicial Officer concluded that the plaintiff is not proved to be the bhumidhar of the land in suit. This finding was pivotal, as it led to the dismissal of the suit without addressing other issues. The appeal argued that the Judicial Officer lacked jurisdiction to remit this issue to the Civil Court after the amendment of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by Act No. 37 of 1958, which came into force on 7-11-1958. The court agreed, noting that after the amendment, there was no provision requiring the Revenue Court to refer the question of bhumidhari right to the Civil Court.

2. Whether the suit is within time:

The Judicial Officer did not record any findings on this issue due to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not a bhumidhar. This issue remains unresolved and will need to be addressed upon remand.

3. Whether the defendants are trespassers of the land in suit:

Similarly, this issue was not addressed by the Judicial Officer because of the primary finding on the bhumidhari right. It will need to be reconsidered upon remand.

4. Whether the court-fee stamps are sufficient:

The Judicial Officer found in favor of the plaintiff on this issue, determining that the court-fee stamps were sufficient.

5. Whether the suit is cognizable by this court:

The Judicial Officer ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the suit was cognizable by the court.

6. Whether the suit is bad for want of valid notice:

The Judicial Officer also found in favor of the plaintiff on this issue, determining that the suit was not bad for want of valid notice.

7. To what relief and damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled:

Given the finding that the plaintiff is not a bhumidhar, the Judicial Officer did not address the issue of relief and damages. This will need to be reconsidered upon remand.

8. Whether the land in suit vested in Gram Samaj after the passing of Act I of 1951:

This issue was also left unresolved by the Judicial Officer due to the primary finding on the bhumidhari right. It will need to be addressed upon remand.

Additional Analysis:

The court discussed the procedural changes brought by various amendments to the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, emphasizing that procedural laws operate retrospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Kallu Khan v. Kamrunisa, which established that the jurisdiction of the court for deciding issues is governed by the law applicable on the date of the decision, not the date of institution.

Refund of Court-Fee:

The court addressed the appellant's request for a certificate under Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act, authorizing the refund of the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. The court concluded that the appellant is entitled to such a certificate, as the remand will be due to the case being decided on a preliminary point.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower court were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision according to law. The appellant was granted a certificate for the refund of the court-fee.