Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1983 DIGILAW 162 (ALL)

Devi v. Gaon Sabha

1983-02-22

R.S.VERMA

body1983
JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member (J.)- The Gaon Sabha Fatehpur Narja, tappa Nedwa, pargana Ghosi, district Basti, filed a suit under Section 229/209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against several persons, seeking relief for declaration that the defendants had no rights in the land in suit either as Bhumidhar or Sirdar or Asami and that they had only fishing rights in the tank concerned. On 2.5.1976, the Gaon Sabha moved an amendment application, seeking deletion of the words that the 'defendants had only fisheries 'rights.' The learned trial court on 17.1.1977 allowed this amendment application on the ground that the proposed amendment was necessary and that by deletion of the said words the suit remained within the jurisdiction of the revenue court. Against that order, a revision was filed in the court of the Additional Commissioner, Shri R.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Commissioner, on 20.6.1977, recommended to the Board that the order of the trial court be set aside and the amendment of the plaint be rejected because the S.D.O. had allowed the amendment not because it was justified or legally permissible but because the proposed amendment would enable the revenue authorities to dispose of the suit. 2. The learned counsel for the revisionist has supported the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner on two grounds firstly, that the proposed amendment changed the nature of the suit and secondly, that the proposed amendment brought the suit within the jurisdiction of the court and that both of these could not have been done. 3. As far as the first argument about changing the nature of the suit is concerned, I do not think that by deletion of the said words the nature of the suit has been changed. All the allegations remain the same in spite of the deletion of the said words. In essence, the Gaon Sabha had sought a declaration that the defendants had no concern with the land in suit either as Bhumidhar or Sirdar or Assami. This declaration can be granted by a revenue court and by no other court. By the proposed amendment the nature of the suit or relief sought has not been changed. Only an additional relief sought has been deleted. There is nothing wrong in this. 4. This declaration can be granted by a revenue court and by no other court. By the proposed amendment the nature of the suit or relief sought has not been changed. Only an additional relief sought has been deleted. There is nothing wrong in this. 4. Regarding the second point that a court which has no jurisdiction initially cannot by any amendment bring the suit within its own jurisdiction, I am of the view that in certain cases such amendment can be allowed and the court has jurisdiction to allow such amendment. The learned counsel for the revisionist has cited A.I.R 1978 Calcutta page 133 and A.I.R. 1979 Calcutta, page 55, in which it was held that a court lacking pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit, is not competent to allow amendment of plaint to bring the suit within its own jurisdiction. It was also held that the grant of amendment postulates an authority of the court to entertain the suit and make an order for amendment therein, but where the court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit it cannot make any order for amendment to bring the suit within its jurisdiction, in that case, the court will be exercising jurisdiction which it has not. 5. These rulings are distinguishable. This is not a case in which there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in the revenue court to try the suit. As I have said earlier, the revenue court alone has jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 229/209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The present case was one in which there was mere abandonment of a part of the claim so that the court in view of such abandonment by the plaintiff may hold the suit in other part to be within its jurisdiction. By this amendment an extra and inconsequential relief, originally sought by the plaintiff, was deleted so as to bring the main suit within the jurisdiction of the revenue court. In a recent case reported in A.I.R. 1983 N.O.C.4 Alld. the High Court of Allahabad has held that averments in original plaint showing that the court has no jurisdiction can be suitably amended so as to bring the suit in court's jurisdiction and the court cannot decline to consider amendment on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. In a recent case reported in A.I.R. 1983 N.O.C.4 Alld. the High Court of Allahabad has held that averments in original plaint showing that the court has no jurisdiction can be suitably amended so as to bring the suit in court's jurisdiction and the court cannot decline to consider amendment on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. In this ruling, the High Court relied on an earlier decision reported in A.I.R. 1958 Alld. page 96. The ruling applies to the present case. 6. Apart from seeking declaration about the status of the defendants, the Gaon Sabha had originally sought a relief to the effect that the defendants had only fisheries rights in the disputed land. Declaration of fishery rights was within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to grant this relief. Hence, this part of the relief was deleted by the proposed amendment and there was absolutely no illegality or injustice committed or done by allowing the amendment application. What is important to note in the present suit is that the suit for declaration under Section 229 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and for ejectment under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was within the competence of the revenue court and the plaintiff, Gaon Sabha, sought only this relief. This declaration and ejectment was necessary because in a case under Section 145 Cr. P.C. possession over the land in suit had been given to the defendants. The plaintiff in the context of this case was not required at all to seek declaration that the defendants had got only fisherie's rights in the disputed plots. This relief was quite redundant and as inclusion of this relief tended to oust the jurisdiction of the revenue court in so far as this declaration was concerned, the plaintiff, by the proposed amendment, wanted to delete this redundant relief, which was not material in this case. I agree with the view of the learned trial court that the proposed amendment was necessary for the just decision of the case and hence it was bound to be allowed. I do not agree with the view of the learned Additional Commissioner that illegality was committed by the learned trial court by allowing the said amendment. 7. In view of this, I do not agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. I do not agree with the view of the learned Additional Commissioner that illegality was committed by the learned trial court by allowing the said amendment. 7. In view of this, I do not agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. In my view, the order passed by the learned trial court was perfectly just and was also legal. No interference can be made by this revisional court in the order passed by the learned trial court. So, I hereby dismiss the revision petition.