Civil court jurisdiction and possessory relief: settled possession supported injunction and possession, but ownership failed absent title.

The civil court's jurisdiction was not barred because the suit for declaration, possession and injunction did not fall within the disputes expressly reserved by the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, and the objection was not timely raised. A counter-claim was not entertainable after the defendant had been proceeded ex parte and had lost the right to file a written statement, because no defence pleading existed as a procedural foundation. On the merits, the plaintiff could not be declared owner on an agreement to sell alone, but proved peaceful and settled possession against a trespasser; the court therefore sustained possessory relief, restoration of possession and injunction while setting aside the declaration of ownership.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965; (ii) whether a counter-claim could be entertained after the defendant had been proceeded ex parte and had lost the right to file a written statement; and (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of ownership, possession and injunction on the facts proved, or only to protection of possessory title.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.

Analysis: The bar under the special statute applied only to disputes of the kinds expressly covered by the statutory scheme. Jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded unless the plaint on its face brings the dispute within the statutory bar. The plaint was one for declaration, possession and injunction against an alleged trespass and did not disclose a dispute between members, a society and its members, or any other class of dispute reserved for the Registrar. No timely objection to jurisdiction had been raised before the trial court or in the revisions.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether a counter-claim could be entertained after the defendant had been proceeded ex parte and had lost the right to file a written statement.

Analysis: A counter-claim under Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is ordinarily part of the written statement and can also be raised by subsequent pleading only where a written statement or earlier pleading exists. Where the defendant has forfeited the right to file a written statement and no defence pleading is on record, there is no procedural foundation for a counter-claim. The belated attempt would also defeat the orderly progress of the suit and reopen concluded stages of the trial.

Conclusion: The counter-claim was not entertainable and the refusal to take it on record was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of ownership, possession and injunction on the facts proved, or only to protection of possessory title.

Analysis: A contract for sale does not by itself create title, and the plaintiff could not be declared owner merely on the basis of the agreement to sell. However, the evidence established that the plaintiff was in peaceful and settled possession pursuant to the agreement and that the defendant was a rank trespasser who attempted to interfere otherwise than by due process of law. The law protects settled possession and permits restoration and injunctions against unlawful dispossession, even though proprietary title is not established.

Conclusion: The decree for declaration of ownership was set aside, but the plaintiff was held entitled to possessory declaration, restoration of possession and injunctive reliefs.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of modifying the basis of the declaration, while the substantive relief of recovery of possession and injunction against unlawful interference was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a plaintiff proves peaceful and settled possession but not ownership, the court may grant possessory relief against a trespasser, and a counter-claim cannot be entertained after the defendant has lost the right to file a written statement and no defence pleading exists on record.

---