SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 813

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Narendra Kumar Mittal & Ors – Appellants
Versus
M/s Nupur Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. and Anr – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5979 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.8352 of 2015 With Civil Appeal No. 5980 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.8528 of 2015
Decided On : 31-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Garvesh Kabra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Syed Abdul Haseeb, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Revenue court has no jurisdiction for cancellation of sale deed.

Headnote:U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 331 - Bar u/s 331 on agricultural land - Instant suit not for declaration of right and title on the disputed agricultural land - But for cancellation of sale deeds on ground of fraud and misrepresentation - Held, Revenue court has no jurisdiction for cancellation of sale deed. (Para 7)

       Facts of the case:

       The plaintiff is a private limited company who had purchased from the first defendant certain properties under five sale deeds, all dated 17.10.1998. The plaintiff submitted an application in the office of the Tehsildar for having its name entered in the record in respect of the disputed property. During the pendency of these proceedings, it came to the knowledge of the officials of the plaintiff that the first defendant had illegally sold the disputed property through four registered sale deeds all dated 15.06.2006 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Therefore, the plaintiff filed original suit for cancellation of the said sale deed and also for injunction against the first defendant and the second defendant restraining them from interfering with its possession and use of the property.

       The second defendant questioned the maintainability of the suit, having regard to Section 331 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Civil Court held that the suit was maintainable. The second defendant challenged the said order before the High Court was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Suit was maintainable.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.

       

Judgement Key Points
  • The suit filed by the plaintiff seeks cancellation of sale deeds dated 15.06.2006 executed by the first defendant in favor of defendants 2 to 5, on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, along with an injunction restraining interference with the plaintiff's possession. [1000637580001][1000637580002]
  • The plaintiff, a private limited company, purchased the disputed agricultural property under five sale deeds dated 17.10.1998 from the first defendant and applied to the Tehsildar for mutation of records. [1000637580002]
  • The defendants challenged the suit's maintainability in the civil court under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, claiming bar on suits involving agricultural land; the civil court rejected the challenge, and the High Court dismissed the revision. [1000637580003]
  • Section 331 bars civil court jurisdiction only for suits seeking declaration of rights or title as a tenure-holder in agricultural land; it does not apply to suits solely for cancellation of a sale deed. [1000637580004][1000637580006][1000637580009]
  • Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be strictly construed and is not readily inferred unless explicitly expressed or clearly implied. (!) [1000637580006]
  • Distinction exists between suits to set aside a deed requiring adjudication and transactions void ab initio, which do not require cancellation; the former falls within civil court jurisdiction. (!)
  • Revenue courts lack jurisdiction to grant relief of cancellation of a sale deed on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. [1000637580006]
  • Where the plaintiff's title under prior sale deeds is not disputed and no declaration of title is sought, a suit for cancellation of a subsequent fraudulent sale deed is maintainable in civil court, unaffected by Section 331. [1000637580006][1000637580009]
  • The suit is maintainable in the civil court. [1000637580009]
  • Appeals challenging maintainability dismissed. [1000637580011][1000637580013]

JUDGMENT :

S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5979 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8352 of 2015

1. Leave granted.

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the first respondent-plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.06.2006 against the appellant-second defendant and second respondent-first defendant, and for injunction restraining them from interfering with its possession of the property was maintainable?

3. The plaintiff is a private limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It had purchased from the first defendant certain properties (for short 'the disputed property') in Village Yakootpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar under five sale deeds, all dated 17.10.1998. The plaintiff submitted an application in the office of the Tehsildar for having its name entered in the record in respect of the disputed property. During the pendency of these proceedings, it came to the knowledge of the officials of the plaintiff that the first defendant had illegally sold the disputed property through four registered sale deeds all dated 15.06.2006 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Therefore, the plaintiff filed original suit No.55 of 2008 in the court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gautam Budh Nagar, for cancellation of the said sale deed and also for injunction against the first defendant and the second defendant restraining them from interfering with its possession and use of the property.

4. The second defendant questioned the maintainability of the suit, having regard to Section 331 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’). The Civil Court vide order dated 22.05.2014 held that the suit was maintainable. The second defendant challenged the said order before the Allahabad High Court. After considering the matter, the High Court dismissed the revision petition by its order dated 17.11.2014. The second defendant has called in question the legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the disputed property is an agricultural land. The contention of the learned counsel for the second defendant is that the suit in respect of agricultural land is barred under Section 331 of the Act. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff was only for cancellation of the sale deed and for injunction and thus the bar contained in Section 331 of the Act is not attracted.

6. This Court in Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors., ((1990) 1 SCC 207) has drawn a distinction between the suits cognizable by the civil court and the cases where Revenue Court has exclusive jurisdiction. It was also held that the statutory provisions ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court need to be strictly construed. It was held thus:

"7. It is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. The provisions of a law which seek to oust the jurisdiction of civil court need to be strictly construed. Section 331 of the Act has been the subject of series of pronouncements of the High Court as to the circumstances and the nature of the suits in which its exclusionary effect operates. Distinction was sought to be drawn between the class of cases where the binding effect of a deed had had to be got rid of by an appropriate adjudication on the one hand and the class of cases in which a transaction could be said to be void in law where what the law holds to be void, there is nothing to cancel or set aside on the other. In the former case, it was held, a suit was cognisable by the civil court while in the latter, it was not, it being open to the statutory authority to take note of the legal incidents of what was non est."

7. In the instant case, the plaintiff has pleaded that it had purc









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top