Deepak Gupta, J.@mdashThe appellant originally filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class (1), Kangra claiming to be in exclusive possession of the suit land as co-owner. In this suit, respondent No. 2 raised a plea that he was a tenant on the suit land and had become owner of the same by virtue of the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The suit was decided against the present appellant and the Court also held that present respondent No. 2. has become owner of the suit land. The appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 28.4.1993. Thereafter, the present appellant filed the regular second appeal in this Court and during the pendency of the same filed an application before the Land Reforms Officer, Kangra, District Kangra on 26.10.1994 praying that the revenue entries, showing respondent No. 2 to be the tenant in possession of the suit land, be changed and the appellant be shown to be in possession of the suit land as co-owner and the ownership be reverted to the appellant and the other co-owners. The Land Reforms Officer vide his order dated 27.9.1999 decided the matter in favour of the appellant and it was held that appellant was owner in possession of the suit land and the Land Reforms Officer accordingly directed that the revenue entries be corrected. When the regular second appeal was argued before this Court, it appears that this was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and this Court dismissed the regular second appeal on 3.11.1999 which mean that the judgment and decree of the Sub Judge holding that respondent No. 2 was tenant on the suit land and had become owner of the suit land was upheld. After the judgment was passed by this Court in regular second appeal No. 219 of 1993, the higher revenue authorities had no authority to proceed with the matter when all the proceedings were decided against the appellant.
2. The appellant thereafter filed writ petition and the learned Single Judge rightly held that once the status of the parties was finally determined by the civil court, whether a person was tenant or not, this would be binding on the revenue authorities.
3. Before us, it is submitted by Shri Sanjay Jaswal, learned counsel for the appellant that the civil Court had no authority to decide this issue and secondly that the appellant had approached the Land Reforms Officer at the time when the regular second appeal was pending and lastly he submits that Land Reforms Officer went to the spot and after verification of the spot came to the findings which should not be disturbed.
4. We are not at all impressed with the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant. It was the appellant who invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court and it does not lie in his mouth to urge that the civil court has no jurisdiction. It was the appellant who filed the regular second appeal before this Court and merely because he had simultaneously approached the Land Reforms Officer does not means that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction or not is a mixed question of law and fact and will have to be determined on facts of each case. The appellant who himself approached the civil Court cannot be permitted to raise this objection. We also find that one of the issues framed before the civil Court is, whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. It is obvious that this issue was decided holding that the civil Court had jurisdiction. Therefore, the revenue authorities cannot sit over the judgment of the civil Court. Once there is judgment of the civil Court, the revenue authorities are bound to follow the same. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.
