Civil court jurisdiction over agricultural land disputes may require remand for evidence when the statutory bar turns on disputed facts.

Civil court jurisdiction over a possession claim involving alleged agricultural land may be barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, but where the jurisdictional objection depends on disputed facts and no issue has been framed, the question should not be finally decided on the existing record. The proper course is to permit a limited amendment on the jurisdictional aspect, frame the issue, and remand the matter for evidence and findings under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC. The article states that the appeal was not decided on merits and was sent back for determination of the jurisdictional bar after evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant possession was barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954; (ii) whether the matter should be remanded for evidence and permitting amendment of the plaint on the jurisdictional aspect.

Issue (i): Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant possession was barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

Analysis: The dispute raised a serious jurisdictional objection because the suit property was pleaded as agricultural land and the relief claimed included possession and demolition of unauthorized construction. Since no issue had been framed by the Trial Court on the bar of civil jurisdiction, the jurisdictional question could not properly be finally decided on the existing record alone.

Conclusion: The question of civil court jurisdiction under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was left for determination by the Trial Court after evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter should be remanded for evidence and permitting amendment of the plaint on the jurisdictional aspect.

Analysis: The Court found that the appellant could not object to amendment on the limited question of applicability of the Reforms Act and civil court jurisdiction, particularly since the objection had not been taken in the written statement and the facts pleaded were akin to those relied upon in the cited precedents. The Court therefore considered an additional issue necessary and directed evidence to be led before the Trial Court under the remand procedure.

Conclusion: Amendment of the plaint on the limited jurisdictional aspect was permitted and the matter was remanded under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure for evidence and findings.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not finally decided on merits and was sent back for determination of the jurisdictional issue after evidence, with limited liberty to amend the pleadings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicability of a statutory bar to civil court jurisdiction turns on disputed facts and no issue has been framed, the proper course is to frame the issue, allow evidence, and decide the question on remand.

---