https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199388 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. en-us Mon, 05 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:10:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199388 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199388