1998 INSC 0749
                                                    Chheda Singh

                                                           Vs

                                Town Area Committee, Akbarpur and Another

                                          Civil Appeal No. 1235 of 1984

                            (CJI M. M. Punchhi, G. B. Pattanaik, A. P. Mishra JJ)

                                                      23.09.1998

                                                        ORDER

1. The defendant-appellant has challenged the concurrent finding recorded by all the courts below.
The trial court decreed the suit of the respondents for recovery of possession which was confirmed
by the first appellate court and also by the High Court in the second appeal. The only point raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant is that once question of the validity of bhumidhari sanad being
raised by the respondent in an earlier proceeding and that having become final, the question raised
now that the appellant is not the Bhumidhar of the disputed land cannot be raised and for this the
civil court would have no jurisdiction.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after giving our consideration, we do not find
any merit in the submission. The jurisdiction of the civil court is only ousted by virtue of Section
331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Under it, the jurisdiction of the
civil court is only excluded in case it falls under Column 4 or under Column 3 of Schedule II. So far
as proceeding for cancellation of the bhumidhari is concerned, it is a matter covered under Section
137-A of the said Act, which is not referred in Column 3 of the said Schedule. This apart, ouster of
civil court jurisdiction under the said Act would only arise if the defendant could be a tenant under
the said Act or in other words, there existed such basic fact, before the coming in force of the said
Act, to qualify him to be such. We find that the finding recorded is that the appellant was not even
in cultivatory possession over the land in dispute prior to the coming of the said Act. The
bhumidhari sanad was granted in view of his being wrongly recorded as Sirdar. Once the basic fact
is recorded by the courts below that he was not in cultivator possession prior to the Act, the question
of any entry as Sirdar cannot stand and for adjudicating this, the civil court jurisdiction is not
ousted.

3. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.