Summary and Analysis of Mahesh Chand Dead Through LRs vs Brijesh Kumar & Ors
1. Heading of the Judgment
MAHESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRs vs. BRIJESH KUMAR & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10256 OF 2025
Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: August 19, 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan
Citation: Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through LRs vs. Brijesh Kumar & Ors., (2025) INSC 1005, Civil Appeal No. 10256 of 2025 (SC).
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following laws:
The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZALR Act):
Section 143: Pertains to the declaration of land as being used for non-agricultural purposes.
Section 145: Deals with the registration of such a declaration.The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
Order VII Rule 10: Provides for the return of a plaint to be presented to the court having jurisdiction.General Principle of Law: The doctrine that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and subsequent events that go to the root of the case can be taken into account to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Parties:
Appellant: Mahesh Chand (deceased, represented by his Legal Representatives), the landlord.
Respondents: Brijesh Kumar & Ors., the tenants (successors of the original tenant).Origin of the Case: The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.1623 of 1992, dated 15.02.2024. The High Court had partially allowed the landlord's appeal but ordered the return of the plaint to be filed before the competent court, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction.
Core Dispute: The central issue was whether a Civil Court had the jurisdiction to hear a suit for eviction and rent arrears concerning a piece of land that was originally agricultural but had been leased explicitly for a non-agricultural purpose (a petrol pump) and was subsequently officially declared as non-agricultural during the pendency of the lawsuit.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
The Supreme Court's decision revolved around two key legal questions: the timing of the jurisdiction-determining event and a procedural requirement under the UPZALR Act.
A. Factual Background and Procedural History
The Lease: On 31.07.1970, the landlord and the original tenant entered into a registered lease agreement. The land was explicitly taken on rent for the non-agricultural purpose of setting up an Indian Oil petrol pump at a monthly rent of ₹150.
The Lawsuit: As the tenant stopped paying rent after 30.06.1972, the landlord filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears in 1974 in the Civil Court.
First Jurisdictional Challenge: The tenant filed an application claiming the Civil Court had no jurisdiction as the land was agricultural, and only the Revenue Court could hear the case. The Trial Court rejected this plea on 14.08.1976, noting the land was always used for a non-agricultural purpose. This order was never challenged.
Trial Court Decree: The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the landlord on 30.11.1981.
First Appellate Court Reversal: The tenant appealed. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that without a formal declaration under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act, the land remained agricultural, and thus the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. It dismissed the suit.
High Court's Order: The landlord's second appeal to the High Court was partially allowed. The High Court agreed that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction at the time of filing but, instead of dismissing the suit, ordered the plaint to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation to the proper forum (Revenue Court). The High Court also framed five substantial questions of law but decided the case primarily on the jurisdictional issue.
B. The Core Legal Issue: Jurisdiction and Subsequent Events
The Supreme Court identified the fatal flaw in the reasoning of the First Appellate Court and the High Court: their failure to consider a crucial subsequent event.
The Crucial Fact: During the pendency of the civil suit, the competent revenue authority had declared the land as non-agricultural. An initial approval was granted on 10.12.1975, and after some litigation, a final order was passed on 14.03.1986. This was during the pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Court.
The Legal Principle: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled law that an appeal is a continuation of the original suit. Therefore, courts are duty-bound to take notice of subsequent events that fundamentally alter the basis of the dispute, especially if it relates to a core issue like jurisdiction. This is done to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to do complete justice.
Application to the Case: Both the First Appellate Court (in 1992) and the High Court (in 2024) failed to consider that by the time they were deciding the case, the land had already been declared non-agricultural in 1986. Since the land was non-agricultural, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was no longer barred. The Supreme Court held that dismissing the suit or returning the plaint on jurisdictional grounds was a grave error, as the defect in jurisdiction had been cured by a subsequent event.
C. Rejection of the Tenant's Procedural Argument
The tenants raised a technical argument that the Section 143 declaration was invalid because it was not registered under Section 145 of the UPZALR Act. The Supreme Court rejected this argument outright:
Duty of the Authority, Not the Landowner: The Court held that Section 145 casts the duty of forwarding the declaration for registration on the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division, not on the landowner.
A Mere Procedural Formality: Registration under this section is to be done free of cost and is a procedural formality for the revenue records. The landowner cannot be penalized or deprived of the benefits of a valid declaration due to an administrative lapse by a government officer. The declaration itself was valid and substantive.
D. Supreme Court's Decision and Directions
Allowed the Appeal: The Supreme Court allowed the landlord's appeal.
Set Aside Impugned Orders: The judgments of the High Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside.
Remanded the Case: The matter was remanded back to the First Appellate Court to be decided on its merits (i.e., on the grounds of eviction and rent arrears, not jurisdiction).
Timeline for Disposal: Noting that the litigation was over 50 years old, the Supreme Court directed the First Appellate Court to hear and decide the appeal within six months.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the landlord, holding that the Civil Court did have jurisdiction to hear the eviction suit because the land had been officially declared non-agricultural during the lawsuit's pendency. The case was sent back to the appellate court to finally decide whether the tenant should be evicted for non-payment of rent.