Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 9

Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 116

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9-Jurisdiction of Civil Courts-Nature of suit for determining jurisdiction of Court to be decided on basis of averments in plaint and not on basis of any   It is a well-established principle that the nature of a suit for the purpose of determining jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the averments in the plaint and not on the basis of any defence that may be taken up.   Cheta v. Baija and others A I R 1927 Lah. 452; Baru and others v..Naidar and others A I R 1942 Lah. 217 and Muhammad Yousuf v. Nek Muhammad P L D 1955 Lah. 183 rel.   Punjab Tenancy Act (XYI of 1887), S. 77, Second Group, clause 3 (e)-Applies only when relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and nature of tenancy alone is in dispute.   Clause 3 (e), Second Group, section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 is applicable only when the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and the nature of the tenancy alone is in dis pute. A suit, however, in which the point for determination is not the nature of the tenancy but as to whether the defendant is liable to be dispossessed on grounds other than the relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant, is cognizable by a civil Court. Doubtless, proviso (1), section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, creates an exception to this rule and where in a suit cognizable and instituted in a civil Court it becomes necessary to decide any matter which can be heard and determined under this section by a revenue Court, the civil Court shall return the plaint for determination to the revenue Court.   Sham Singh and others v. Amarjit Singh A I R 1.931 Lah. 362 rel.   Approbation and reprobation-Plaintiff filing suit for eject ment in revenue Court-Defendant denying relationship of landlord and tenant-Plaintiff withdrawing suit from revenue Court and filing suit in civil Court-Defendant cannot raise plea in civil Court that defendant is tenant of plaintiff' and suit is not competent Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 116-Estoppel.   Desai and others v. Channappa Mahalingappa and others A I R 1934 Bom. 329; Thana Ram and another v. Himtu Ram and another A I R 1935 Lah. 96;…