Nand Lal vs Devi Prasad Singh

Prakash Krishna, J.—Raising a short controversy relating to the jurisdiction of Court to entertain the suit filed by the petitioner in respect of agricultural land described at the foot of the plaint for cancellation of sale deed dated 4.1.1971, will lie before Civil Court or before Revenue Court.

Plaintiff, the petitioner, instituted original suit No. 432 of 1995 on the allegation that his father was a recorded tenure holder of four plots described at the foot of the plaint and after his death which took place about fifteen years ago, he is the sole surviving heir and legal representative and has inherited the said plots and is in occupation thereof. In the month of April, the defendants threatened the plaintiff to evict him on the ground that he has purchased the property in dispute by means of sale deed dated 4.1.1971, thus, the cause of action to file the suit arose. The cancellation of the sale deed was sought for on the ground that the said sale deed was never executed by his father nor does it contain his thumb impression. In any case, the said sale deed was never acted upon. The suit is being contested by denying the plaint allegations. It has been stated that the said sale deed is a valid document and has been acted upon. The property in dispute was purchased after payment of sale consideration and the possession was delivered by the vendor Sukhdev to them and they are in actual physical possession of the disputed plots. The vendor Sukhdev has died long ago and the plaintiff had the knowledge of the sale deed. The suit is barred by time.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were struck. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 to the effect whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit were struck and have been decided as preliminary issues. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 28th of November, 2007 decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff which was contested in revision No. 9 of 2008 filed by the defendants. The revision has been allowed by the judgment and decree dated 4th of September, 2008 holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that power to cancel a sale deed vests only in Civil Court. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the suit in question is maintainable before the Civil Court. In contra, the learned Counsel for the defendants-respondents submits that in view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Kamla Prasad v. Krishna Kant Pathak 2007 (102) RD 378, the question of validity of sale deed in respect of agricultural land can be entertained by Revenue Court only.

Considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

A bare perusal of the plaint would show that the plaintiff has sought the cancellation of the sale deed dated 4.1.1971 executed by his father on the ground that his father never executed the said sale deed and he (plaintiff) continued in occupation of the disputed plots. The said sale deed does not contain the thumb impression of his father and according to him, is a forged and fabricated document. The Court below has found that the sale deed is in respect of agricultural land. The village was under consolidation operation and after completion of the consolidation operation, new plot numbers have been allotted and the name of defendants have been mutated after expunging name of Sukhdev. This, according to the Court below, shows that the sale deed has been acted upon and the name of defendants have been recorded in the revenue record and they are in possession thereof. These findings were not challenged before me by the petitioner. The question arose whether in such fact situation, the suit would be maintainable before a Civil Court or not. To me it appears that the said controversy is no longer res integra and stands concluded by authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court in the case of Kamla Prasad and Ors. v. Krishna Kant Pathak (supra). The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that admittedly, the property in dispute originally belonged to plaintiffs father Sukhdev, no declaration of title is involved, therefore, the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for cancellation of the sale deed in respect of agricultural land. In the case of Kamla Prasad (supra), the Apex Court has noticed a distinction and has reproduced a passage from its earlier judgment in the case of Sri Ram and Ors. to the fact that the position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in Civil Court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and therefore, he may be directed to approach the Revenue Court as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration of possession.

In para-16 of the report the Apex Court has noticed that where name of contesting defendant has been recorded in the revenue record and the name of plaintiff was deleted, it is a Revenue Court which will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

This being so, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the revisional Court holding that the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court and the remedy of the plaintiff is to approach the Revenue Court. There is no merit in the writ petition.

The writ petition is dismissed.