High CourtsSingle Bench

Nand Lal Pathak and another vs District Judge, Mirzapur and others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 24 May 2011 · Citation: (2011) 10 ADJ 794 : (2011) 6 AWC 6085 : (2011) 114 RD 105

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 331
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 10573 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 440 words

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

This is plaintiffs'' writ petition arising out of Original Suit No. 286 of 1987 filed by them against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Gajraj and Mool Shanker. Defendant No. 1 in the suit was Musammat Bagwanti who died on 7.3.1991 and no one was substituted at her place. She belonged to the family of the plaintiffs-petitioners- She was recorded as bhumidhar of certain agricultural land in the Revenue Records which she sold: through a registered sale-deed dated 3.3.1986 to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3/ respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The prayer in the plaint of the suit was for cancellation of the sale deed. Defendants raised the plea of bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. After filing of the written statement, issues were framed. The issue relating to the jurisdiction (whether the suit is hot maintainable in the Civil Court in view of section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act) was decided as a preliminary issue by Munsif Mirzapur on 4.3.1998 holding that the suit was maintainable before the Civil Court. Against the said judgment and order contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed civil revision No, 55 of 1998. The District Judge, Mirzapur allowed the revision on 22.12.2006 and held the suit to be not maintainable before the Civil Court. The said judgment and order of the Revisional Court has been challenged through this writ petition

3.

In the plaint it was stated that just for the satisfaction of Musammat Bagwanti her name had been recorded in the revenue records but she was not bhumidhar and by maximum she was licensee

4.

If the situation which is brought in existence by the sale deed is challenged then the sale-deed may, be challenged before the Civil Court also even if the allegation is that the sale-deed is void (e.g. the allegation that it was executed by some impostor) However, if the challenge is to the position existing immediately before execution of the sale-deed then simple suit for cancellation of sale-deed or its declaration as void is not maintainable before the Civil Court as such suit necessarily involves the declaration of right prior to execution of the sale-deed; In the instant case unless a declaration is granted that even prior to the execution of the sale-deed, Musammat Bagwanti was not bhumidhar of the land in dispute, sale-deed cannot be cancelled. Such a declaration can be granted only and only by Revenue Court.

5.

Therefore, the learned District, Judge, rightly held that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court.

6.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.