Back
2004 Supreme(All) 884
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARUN TANDON
BARKHU - Appellant
Versus
5th ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BASTI - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 14252 Of 1989
Decided On : 05/07/2004
R.C.GUPTA
The main legal point established is that the suit for cancellation of a void sale-deed is maintainable in the Civil Court as per the Specific Relief Act, despite any conflicting provisions in other acts.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Cancellation of Sale-Deed - U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act - Section 331, Specific Relief Act - [Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father filed a suit for cancellation of a registered sale-deed. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable due to the bar contained in Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. The Munsif initially held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction, but the revision filed by the defendant was allowed, stating that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the Civil Court had jurisdiction based on the Specific Relief Act and cited relevant judgments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit for cancellation of a void sale-deed is maintainable in the Civil Court, as per the Specific Relief Act and relevant case law. The court set aside the order of the revisional Court and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed in light of Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Specific Relief Act and established legal principles to determine that the suit for cancellation of a void sale-deed is maintainable in the Civil Court, despite the provisions of Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order of the revisional Court was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed.
( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent. Nobody is present on behalf of the private respondents.
( 2 ) PETITIONERs father had filed Original suit No. 219 of 1982, Tamai v. Smt. Prabhawati and others, only with one relief i. e. cancellation of the registered sale-deed.
( 3 ) IN the said suit written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant and it was contended that the suit as filed was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act.
( 4 ) THE Munsif framed an issue in that regard and vide order dated 10th December, 1986 held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the said suit. Against the said order Defendant No. 2 filed a revision, which was numbered as Civil Revision No. 63 of 1987. The revision filed by the defendant has been allowed and it has been held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the bar contained in Section 331 of the U. P. Z. A. and l. R. Act. Hence, present writ petition.
( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the sole relief prayed for in the plaint was for cancellation of the registered sale-deed as well as the gift deed. Thus, in view of the Section 31 of the Specific Relief act, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to cancel the said document. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the honble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (92) Rev Dec 241 as well as upon the Full bench judgment of this Court reported in 1989 Rev Dec 21.
( 6 ) DESPITE notices having been issued to the legal heirs of the respondent No. 3 as well as other respondents, nobody is present on behalf of the private respondents.
( 7 ) I have gone through the record of the writ petition as well as copy of the plaint, which is enclosed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.
( 8 ) FROM the record it is apparently clear that only one relief has been claimed in the said plaint namely cancellation of the registered sale-deed as well the gift deed.
( 9 ) THE Full Bench of this Court, in the judgment reported in 1989 Rev Dec 21, while considering the jurisdiction of the Civil/revenue court in respect of the void sale-deed, has specifically held as follows : these cases in substance lay down that suit for cancellation of void deed is cognizable by civil Court and Section 331 does not deprive a party from a right to approach competent Court of law for getting a document cancelled and instead drives a party to revenue Court claiming a different relief and that of cancellation which a revenue court cannot grant holding the deed to be void. "
( 10 ) SUIT for cancellation of a void document will generally lies in the Civil Court and party cannot be deprived of his right for getting this relief under the law except when a declaration of title or status of a tenure-holder is necessarily involved where relief of cancellation of sale-deed is surplus. In the plaint allegation it is contended that plaintiff was recorded tenure-holder in possession of land in dispute and an imposter has executed the sale-deed of the land belonging to the plaintiff. Full Bench, referred to above on Page 30 of the said judgment, has been held that in case of void document said to have been executed by a plaintiff during his disability or by some one impersonating him or said to have been executed by his predecessor whom he succeeds, the relief of cancellation of the document is more appropriate relief for clearing the deck of title and burying deep any dispute or controversy on its basis in presenti or which may take place in future. The document after its cancellation would bear such an endorsement in Sub-Registrars register and would be the basis for correction of any paper and revenue record including record of register.
( 11 ) REFERENCE may also be had to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (92) Rev Dec 241 : AIR 2001 sc 1250, Sri Ram v. A
