AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Raman Kumar Shah, counsel for the appellants.
By the present second appeal filed u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as trial Court as well as appellate Court.
Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
(1) whether the suit of plaintiff can be dismissed in the ground that the plaintiff was required to claim for the declaration of the title and therefore the present suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable.
(2) Whether on the basis of the revenue record, the courts below were competent to adjudicate about the title of the plaintiff, so as to grant the relief claimed by the plaintiff from unlawful claim of the defendant on the suit property, whereas plaintiff having in the owner in possession is entitled to the relief.
(3) Question No. 7 as framed by the appellant.
Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant being Original Suit No. 10 of 2000 Prem Ballabh Sati and Ors. v. Sri Basudev and Ors. for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the land in dispute.
I have perused the order passed by the appellate Court, where it has been observed that the mutation matter is already pending before the Revenue Court and further the plaintiff can seek the specific relief/alternative remedy before the Revenue Court as the plaintiff has not been found to be the owner of the land in dispute and it will be open for the plaintiff to get his rights declared from the Revenue Court.
In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the appellate Court, it will be open for the appellant to seek the remedy before the Revenue Court and any finding recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court will not come in the way of the appellant.
Subject to aforesaid, second appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.