Madho Ram vs Mahabali

Bhanwar Singh, J.—This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 2471979, passed by the then District Judge, Kheri. By virtue of the said judgment and decree, the learned District Judge allowed the Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1979 filed by Mahabali, the plaintiff of an original suit No.88of 1977 filed by him for cancellation of saledeed executed by Smt. Jagdei.

The brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be recapitulated as below:

Mahabali, since deceased, filed original suit No. 88 of 1977 for cancellation of the registered saledeed dated 1711977 executed by Smt. Jagdei in favour of the defendantappellant, Madho Ram. The said saledeed was registered on 1811977 and the plaintiff also pleaded for setting aside of the said registration. A short pedigree brought for by the plaintiff would reveal that one Neelkanth had two sons, namely, Raghubir and Jagan. Jagan had a son, Mohan who died leaving behind him Sml. Jagdei as his widow (the executant of the saledeed in question). Raghubir had two sons, namely, Gajodhar and Mahabali (plaintiff). After the death of her husband, Sml. Jagdei became bhumidhar of two plots and Sirdar of one plot situated in village Banstali, Pargana and District Kheri. She had inherited the entire holding from her husband. Mahabali pleaded in her plaint that Smt. Jagdei was illiterate, inexperienced and a Pardanashin lady. At the time of executing the saledeed, she was about 8085 years of age. It was pleaded further by the plaintiff that the defendant, Madho Ram Verma being in collusion with Sheo Nandan Prasad and Banwari put up before the SubRegistrar another lady who represented herself as Smt. Jagdei and got the saledeed in question executed in his favour. As a matter of fact, Smt. Jagdei expired on 611977, i.e. 10 days before the date of the alleged execution of ihe saledeed and, as such, the saledeed was fictitious and collusive. Further, the saledeed being executed without prior permission of the District Collector was illegal and without authority. As a mailer of fact, the plaintiff who was a family member of Smt. Jagdei continued to be in possession of the entire agricultural holding and on the strength of his possession, he filed the sun for cancellation of the saledeed.

Madho Ram, the defendant resisted the suit and denied all the plaint allegations. According to him, Smt, Jagdei acquired the land in suit in the lifetune of her fatherinlaw from her own income. Being absolute owner of the entire holding, she was competent to transfer it to the defendant and the plaintiff Mahabali was neither the legal representative of the deceased, Jagdei nor he ever remained in possession. In fact, the plaintiff had full knowledge regarding execution of the saledeed and it was on account of this that he did not file any objection in the mutation proceedings. Being conscious of her legal right and knowledge, Smt. Jagdei in her lifetime executed the impugned saledeed in favour of answering defendant and delivered possession of the land to him. She had fully understood the contents of the saledeed before she had executed it. It was denied that Smt. Jagdei was a Pardanasin lady. She was quite an experienced and shrewd woman and was able to understand her own acts and welfare. She never lost her capacity to understand and at the time of the execution of the saledeed, she was in her full senses. It was pleaded with vehemence that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

On having perused the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the saledeed dated 1711977 was obtained as alleged in para 4 of the plaint? If so, its effect?

Whether the saledeed in question is liable to be set aside as mentioned in para 5 of the plain!?

Whether the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit?

To what relief, if any. is the plaintiff entitled?

Whether the plaintiff is not the legal representative of the deceased? if so. its effect?

Whether this Court had the jurisdiction to hear the case.

On having scrutinised the submissions of the parties, the trial Court arrived at a common finding on issues 3 & 6 that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and on the basis of the said finding, the plaintiff''s suit was dismissed. However, the plaintiff was recognised to be as the legal representative of the deceased, Smt. Jagdei but no finding had been recorded on issues 1 and 2.

Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff, Mahabali preferred an appeal which was heard and decided by the District Judge, Kheri vide its judgment of July, 24,1979.

Initially, this appeal was termed to be as second appeal but later it was converted into a First Appeal from Order as it was treated to be an appeal filed under Order XLI1I, Rule 1(4) C.P.C.. However, the original suitor, Mahabali expired on January 13, 1986 and in his place, his legal heirs, Mangu Lal arid another were substituted.

The crucial question to be determined by this Court is as to whether the suit filed by late Mahabali was cognisable by I he Civil Court or a Revenue Court''.'' It is clear from the facts brought forth by the parties that the dispute related lo the execution of a saledeed alleged to have been executed by Smt. Jagdei in favour of the plaintiff. By virtue of the said saledeed, Bhumidhariand Sirdari rights were transferred to the appellant and the real controversy revolved around the cancellation of the saledeed in question. Whereas the appellantdefendant''s contention was that the Revenue Court alone had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the plea regarding cancellation of the saledeed and, as such, the suit was barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. the deceasedrespondent/plaintiff, Mahabali''s pleading in the plaint had been to the effect that the Civil Court was competent to lake cognizance of the matter and pass a declaratory decree as sought for. The learned Munsif approved of the defence plea of the appellant and dismissed the suit with a finding that the jurisdiction lies with the Revenue Court. As has been rightly reversed, the finding of the trial Court was patently erroneous as a Revenue Court is not competent to pass a decree declaring the saledeed to be void.

It is a settled law that the jurisdiction of a Court has to be determined on the basis of the pleadings recited in the plaint. It maybe recapitulated that the plaintiff, Mahabali pleaded in his plaint that the defendant Madho Ram Verma got the saledeed in question prepared and executed on 1711977 by putting a woman who impersonated herself to be as Jagdei. As a matter of fact, Jagdei had expired 10 days'' prior to the date of the execution of the saledeed. In this way, the impugned saledeed was termed to be as forged and fictious and it is significant to note that on the basis of the strength of the saledeed, the defendant got his name mutated in the revenue record. On the face of these pleadings, the saledeed won Id not be cancelled by a Revenue Court. Under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, the only instruments which arc void ab initio can be ignored while granting a relief described iii ScheduleII. It is only the Civil Court which is competent to cancel a saledeed of the kind assailed by the deceased Mahahali and the learned District Judge has rightly held that a suit filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act would not ensure the relief sought for by the plaintiff as the defendant would take the plea that the sale deed had conferred valuable rights upon him. If has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Smt. Bixmillah v. Janeshwar Prasad, 1990 AWC Vol. 1,359 (SC) that the suit for cancellation of the void document will generally lie in Civil Court and following the said decision, this Court, in Shea Murat Singh v. Addl. District Judge IV, Ghazipur and others, 1992 A. WC. 246, ruled that the Civil Court is competent to entertain a suit for cancellation of void saledeed regarding agricultural land. The citation, Ram Padarath and others v. 2nd Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1988 L.C.D. 565 and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is not of any help as even in that case, it was held that the suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the Civil Court and a party cannot be deprived of his getting this relief permissible under law except where a declaration of right or status as a tenureholder is necessarily needed in which event relief for cancellation will be surplusage and redundant. In the case in hand, no other relief except for cancellation of saledeed executed by Smt. Jagdei was sought for. The plaintiff had �not pleaded that he was the tenure holder of the holding in question nor on the basis of any such plea, he claimed himself to be the rightful claimant of the agricultural land. If any such relief in addition to cancellation of the saledeed had been prayed for by the plaintiff, the Revenue Court could have granted any such declaratory decree by ignoring the saledeed in question but there was nothing of the sort. In view of this situation, it cannot be said that the plea for cancellation of the saledeed was in surplusage and redundant and, therefore, it may be observed that the citation relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant is not applicable in the present case.

In view of all what has been discussed above, it may reasonably be held that this appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

As the case is old, it is directed that the learned trial Court shall decide it within three months from the dale of receipt of a copy of this Court''s judgment.