SARDAR KHAN AND 2 Others vs RAJA KHAN AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a challenge to a civil court decree granting possession of agricultural land. The petitioners argued that the suit for possession of agricultural land fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of revenue courts, asserting that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the civil court's jurisdiction was ousted by the nature of the dispute, specifically regarding the alleged relationship of landlord and tenant. The Supreme Court held that the civil court retained jurisdiction because the plaintiff's plaint explicitly averred that the petitioners were claiming adverse possession, rather than merely being tenants. The Court clarified that the ouster of civil court jurisdiction requires an agreed position between parties regarding a landlord-tenant relationship. Since the petitioners denied the tenancy and claimed adverse possession, the civil court was the appropriate forum to adjudicate the validity of that claim. The petition was dismissed as the legal basis for challenging the civil court's jurisdiction was unfounded.
- Does a civil court lose jurisdiction over a suit for possession of land if the defendants claim adverse possession?
- Is the jurisdiction of a civil court ousted in a suit involving agricultural land when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied by the defendants?
- Should the jurisdiction of a court be determined solely by the averments in the plaint?
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The learned Civil Judge, Kahuta, by his judgment and decree dated 9-10- 1974 decreed the suit of Raja Khan respondent for the possession of 361 kanlas and 16 marlas of land. The learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge. The petitioners, therefore, filed an appeal before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated 24-6-1975 in limine. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
2. During the pendency of the suit Nazar sold the property to Raja and another who were substituted as the legal representatives.
3. It has been contended before us that the plaint termed the petitioners as tenants. It was filed by Nazar Hussain as the owner of the property in dispute and thus the landlord.
4. It has been urged before us that the suit for possession having been filed against tenants of agricultural land the jurisdiction to entertain and try such a suit vested exclusively in the revenue Courts. The civil Court thus, it is submitted, had no jurisdiction in the matter.
5. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied in the written statement and adverse possession on account of ownership was pressed into service by the petitioners. They, however, urged that the jurisdiction of the Court was to be determined on the averments contained in the plaint and the mere fact that the petitioners denied to be the tenants of the plaintiff would make none the difference so far as this question is concerned.
6. This submission overlooks the fact that the plaintiff had stated in the plaint that the present petitioners were tenants-at-will of the suit land with the consent and permission of the owner "but had been claiming them--selves to be the owners of the suit land after denying their tenancy and had also filed a suit for declaration." It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the suit was filed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant and it is clear also from the issues framed by the learned Civil Judge none of which is relatable to the petitioners being tenants of the plaintiff.
7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the civil Courts jurisdiction would have been ousted only if it were an agreed position between the parties that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between them.
Not only was it not so but the plaintiff, as has been pointed out above, mad it clear in the plaint that the petitioners were claiming adverse possession of the land in dispute. Since the petitioners were claiming adverse possession the Court had to decide whether their claim was correct in law and if it was not the petitioners would not have entitled to possession as persons in adverse possession.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited Baru and others v. Niadar and others (A I 3K 1942 Lah.
217), a Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court, in support of the contention that the nature of a suit for tile purpose of determining jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the averments in the plaint and not on the basis of any defence that may be taken up. This ruling has no application to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances demonst--rated above the plaint itself contained the averment that the petitioners were claiming adverse possession over the property in dispute.
9.This petition has no logs to stand upon and is dismissed.