Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1935 (ALL)

SHYAM LAL v. VIJAY SINGH ALIAS BIJENDRA SINGH

2007-07-20

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2007
( 1 ) LIST revised. Heard Sri Sharad malaviya on behalf of appellants. No one appears for the respondents. ( 2 ) THE only substantial question of law raised in this appeal is whether suit of plaintiffs/appellants for permanent injunction in respect of plot No. 970 which was decreed by the trial Court could have been dismissed merely on the ground that plaintiffs appellants have not mentioned the boundaries of the plot, even though the said plot of land was duly demarcated by the Revenue Authorities by order dated 31st January, 1969 and was identifiable on the spot. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff-appellants brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from encroaching upon their bhoomidari Plot No. 970 situated at Mauza Dev Khera Pergana Etmadpur District Agra. According to them, the said plot was duly demarcated by the Revenue Authorities on 31st January, 1969 and aforesaid demarcation was confirmed by the s. D. O. , Etmadpur on 30th May, 1969. The suit was contested only by the defendants-respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant-respondent No. 4 had expired during the pendency of the suit and therefore, the only contesting parties were defendants-respondents nos. 1 to 3. The trial Court, vide Judgment and order dated 15-9-1975, decreed the suit and restrained the defendants-respondents from interfering with the plaintiffs-appellants possession over the said plot as per the Thiabandi (demarcation) dated 31-1-1969. It was held that the said plot is identifiable and there is no vagueness in the description of the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of decree of the Trial Court, contesting defendants-respondents preferred Civil Appeal No. 177 of 1975. The appellant Court allowed the appeal vide Judgment and order dated 18-4-1977 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants on the ground that plaintiffs-appellants have failed to mention the boundaries of the plot and as such, the plot was not identifiable in the absence of a survey commission. Further reasoning was given that demarcation done by the Revenue Authorities is not binding upon the Civil Court. ( 4 ) IN this background, the second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs-appellants, who raised the above substantial question of law. ( 5 ) SRI Sharad Malaviya has placed reliance upon Order VII Rule 3, C. P. C. and has contended that the description of plot by boundaries is not at all necessary. The land is identifiable by plot number. ( 5 ) SRI Sharad Malaviya has placed reliance upon Order VII Rule 3, C. P. C. and has contended that the description of plot by boundaries is not at all necessary. The land is identifiable by plot number. Order VII Rule 3 provides as under: "where subject-matter of suit is immovable property.- Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by the boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. " ( 6 ) A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision demonstrate that it is not at all necessary in the plaint to give the boundaries of the land where the plot is identifiable by the plot number or on the basis of settlement or survey. ( 7 ) IN the present case plot No. 970 is distinctly identifiable on the basis of number. It has been duly demarcated by the Revenue authorities under Section 41 of the Land revenue Act, vide order dated 31st January, 1969. The said demarcation was made in presence of contesting defendants-respondents. It was subsequently confirmed by the S. D. O. vide order dated 30th May, 1969. The said demarcation became final and conclusive and no dispute in that regard was ever raised. Even in the present suit no challenge was thrown to the above demarcation. Therefore, in my opinion, the lower appellate Court manifestly erred in law in not placing reliance upon the demarcation which was done by the Revenue authorities and has become final and conclusive between the parties. The decisions of the revenue Authorities may not be binding upon Civil Court where said decision is disputed and is not acceptable to one of the parties. Here in the present case the demarcation which was done under the provisions of Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act has been accepted by the parties and is not being disputed. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, demarcation of the plot in dispute was duly done by the revenue authorities and the same was distinctly identifiable on the spot. Therefore, there was no occasion for issuing any survey commission. ( 8 ) IN view of the above, demarcation of the plot in dispute was duly done by the revenue authorities and the same was distinctly identifiable on the spot. Therefore, there was no occasion for issuing any survey commission. The lower appellate Court completely ignored the provision of Order VII Rule 3, c. P. C. in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit on the ground that boundaries of the plot have not been disclosed by the plaintiffs-appellants. Since the plot number was given and plot was identifiable, on the basis of number, there was no compulsion upon the plaintiffs-appellants to have given the boundaries of the plot. ( 9 ) THE appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the lower appellate Court dated 18th, April 1977 passed in civil Appeal No. 177 of 1975 is set aside and the decree passed by the Court in first instance is restored. ( 10 ) NO order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .