IMPORTANT POINT
The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to validity of sale deeds in respect of agricultural land, particularly in view of the case put forward by the plaintiff that over and above the plaintiff, defendants 10 to 12 had also share therein. He was obliged to file suit for declaration in Revenue Court under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Headnote:U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Section 229B—Validity of sale deeds in respect of agricultural lands—Suit for declaration to be filed in Revenue Court—When mutation on basis of impugned sale deed effected by revenue authority and name of plaintiff deleted from Revenue Records—Question of possession of agricultural land could be decided only by Revenue Court—Civil Court had no jurisdiction to give any finding on possession over the agricultural land—Respondent 1, plaintiff filed a suit against appellant in Court of Civil Judge alleging that sale deed executed in their favour was illegal, without authority of law and null and void—Prayer made to cancel those documents—Preliminary objection raised by appellants regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain, deal with and decide the suit—Trial Court held the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court so far as abadi land was concerned and that it had no jurisdiction in respect of agricultural land—Appellate Court confirmed order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal—However, writ petition filed by respondent plaintiff was allowed by the High Court holding that only Civil Court had jurisdiction which could decide such question—Whether High Court was justified in reversing orders passed by lower Courts—(No)—Both the courts below were right in holding that such a question can be decided by a Revenue Court in a suit instituted u/s 229 B of the Act.
       Held : The Trial Court as well as Appellate Court were right in coming to the conclusion that only Revenue Court could have entertained the suit on two grounds. Firstly, the case of the plaintiff himself in the plaint was that he was not the sole owner of the property and defendant Nos. 10 to 12 who were proforma defendants, had also right, title and interest therein. He had also stated in the plaint that though in the Revenue Record, only his name had appeared but defendant Nos. 10 to 12 have also right in the property. In our opinion, both the Courts below were right in holding that such a question can be decided by a Revenue Court in a suit instituted under Section 229B of the Act.(Para 10)
       On second question also, in our view, Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that legality or otherwise of insertion of names of purchasers in Record of Rights and deletion of name of the plaintiff from such record can only be decided by Revenue Court since the names of the purchasers had already been entered into. Only Revenue Court can record a finding whether such an action was in accordance with law or not and it cannot be decided by a Civil Court.(Para 11)
       The lower Appellate Court has expressly stated that the name of the plaintiff had been deleted from Record of Rights and the names of purchasers had been entered. The said fact had been brought on record by the contesting defendants and it was stated that the plaintiff himself appeared as a witness before the Mutation Court, admitted execution of the sale deed, receipt of sale consideration and the factum of putting vendees into possession of the property purchased by them. It was also stated that the records revealed that the names of contesting defendants had been mutated into Record of Rights and the name of plaintiff was deleted.(Para 13)
       In the light of the above facts, in our opinion, the Courts below were wholly right in reaching the conclusion that such a suit could be entertained only by a Revenue Court and Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The High Court by reversing those orders had committed an error of law and of jurisdiction which deserves interference by this Court. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

C.K. Thakker, J.—This appeal is filed by the appellant-original defendant Nos. 1 to 6 against an order dated August 10, 2001, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 386 of 1990.

2. One Kishna Kant Pathak-respondent No.1 herein, filed a suit against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 12 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaunpur being Suit No. 110 of 1984. It was averred in the suit that an agreement to sell dated June 18, 1981 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6, sale deed dated November 7, 1981 executed in their favour and another sale deed, dated December 16, 1981 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were illegal, without authority of law and null and void. A prayer was, therefore, made to cancel those documents. It was stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that he and defendant Nos.10 to 12 were co-bhoomidars of the disputed land and as such defendant Nos.10 to 12 had also right in the disputed property. The names of defendant Nos.10 to 12, however, were not entered in the Revenue Record and only the name of plaintiff was recorded. But in view of shares of defendant Nos.10 to 12, plaintiff alone had no right, title or interest to sell the property.

3. It was also alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff that he had developed bad habits and defendant Nos.1 to 9 took undue advantage of the said situation. The plaintiff was under intoxication and the documents got executed by contesting defendants. The plaintiff did not remember the execution of the sale deed and its presentation before the Sub-Registrar, Kerakat. He did not execute the sale deeds with his freewill and on his own accord. Nothing was paid to him. He was given tablets by defendant Nos. 1 to 9 and he became unconscious. At the time of execution of sale deed, the plaintiff was unconscious and was unable to understand judgment of his act. Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 became vendees on the basis of sale deeds but they were liable to be cancelled in view of the circumstances under which the documents were executed by the plaintiff.

4. The contesting defendants raised several contentions including the contention as to the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain, deal with and decide the suit. It was contended that in respect of cancellation of deeds as regards agricultural land, the suit was not entertainable by a Civil Court as only Court which had jurisdiction was Revenue Court under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It was prayed by the defendants to treat the issue as to jurisdiction of the Court as preliminary issue and decide it.

5. The Trial Court, after considering the contentions of the parties, held that the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court so far as abadi land was concerned. It had, however, no jurisdiction in respect of agricultural land and to that extent, the preliminary objection raised by the contesting defendants was well-founded and was upheld.

6. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred an appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 242 of 1986. The appeal came up for hearing before the III Additional District Judge, Jaunpur who confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Dealing with submission of the parties, the Appellate Court observed that the Trial Court was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to validity of sale-deeds in respect of agricultural land, particularly in view of the case put forward by the plaintiff in the plaint that over and above the plaintiff, defendant Nos.10 to 12 had also share therein. Such a suit, according to the Appellate Court could be entertained only by Revenue Court. According to the Appellate Court, how much share belongs to plaintiff in the disputed land was a question which could be determined only by Revenue Court. He was, therefore, obliged to file suit for declaration in Reven

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 164

Cases Referred (1)