1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.53 OF 2010 (Rama s/o Dashrath Jadhav & others vs. Shri Mohd.Hamidoddin s/o Bashiroddin and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Sharad V.Natu, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. C.R.Deshpande, Adv., for the respondent nos. 1A to AE & 2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:29/11/2010 1. Heard finally. 2. The parties are referred with their original status as plaintiff and defendant. In a suit, being RCS No.1007/1989, the plaintiff, claiming to be an Inamdar, with defendant No.5 Mohammed Nuruddin, staked following reliefs: "A) The compromise made by the defendants No.1 to 5 in Civil Appeal No.39/87 before the Supreme Court of India on 18th August 1989 is illegal, null and void. B) It is further declared that, land S.No.74 i.e. suit land is service Inam land and not Madad Mash. C) That, the judgment passed by Deputy Collector, Additional Commissioner and the Hon'ble High 2 Court regarding nature of Inam of the suit land are interest and the findings of those courts have binding on defendants No.1 to 5, even after compromise referred above. D) The defendants are not entitled to retain possession and decree for delivery of possession of entire suit land or to the extent of half by partition and separation possession, by removing all encumbrances, encroachments, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants be passed. E) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any not to create encumbrances over the suit land hereinafter by way of Sale, Exchange, Gift, Mortgage and Lease or will also be granted. F) The costs of the suit be granted to the plaintiffs from the defendants. G) Any other relief to which the plaintiffs are found entitled having regard to the facts of the case may also be given." 3. The written statement was tendered by the defendant in the said proceedings. Objection to the jurisdiction was raised and, consequently, the learned Judge seized with the matter formulated preliminary issue below Exh.65 ( Page No.64); "whether it has jurisdiction to try the suit" and observed that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit and directed return of the plaint. 3 The order was questioned by the plaintiff before the learned District Judge in M.C.A. No. 89/2009 he held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the lis. These orders are questioned by the defendant. 4. The prayers in the plaint are highlighted hereinabove. The prominent prayer is, apparently, prayer clause (1) seeking quashment of the settlement arrived at before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.39/1987 dt.18th August, 1989, being illegal, null and void. 5. The plaintiff canvassed that though he had interest in the agricultural properties, he being one of the Inamdar, squeezing his right in the property, unilaterally, settlement was arrived at. The second grievance of the plaintiff was the property could not be a Service Inam land as, subsequently, it has been held as Madad Mash Inam land and continues to be Inam land and, 4 hence, settlement reached before the Honourable Supreme Court of India, referred above, is null and void. 6. Considering the nature of principal prayer, even if the jurisdiction of Atiyat Court is referred to, however, by that itself, it could not be branded that the suit in the nature and in the formulation presented was not maintainable. The learned Judge of the first instance was certainly wrong in holding that exclusive jurisdiction would be to the Atiyat Court, oblivious to the other prayers referred hereinabove. 7. The learned District Judge-II, Nanded, considered this position and corrected this mistake. I do not see any error in it. Civil Revision Application does not project any illegality to invoke jurisdiction under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. Inspite of these odds, if the defendant raises a question that the matter, 5 keeping the suit pending before the learned Judge, such issue may be referred to Atiyat Court for a finding on such issue. It would be open for the learned Judge seized with RCS No.1007/1989 to decide the same on its own merit, being not swayed away with the observations in the present Civil Revision Application. Civil Revision Application dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/53-10cra