N.K.MEHROTRA
JAGANNATH – Appellant
Versus
LALA RAM – Respondent
How to determine whether a suit for declaration of a void will and permanent prohibitory injunction lies in the civil court or the revenue court? What is the jurisdiction of civil court in a suit for declaration of a void document and permanent prohibitory injunction in the context of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act? What are the circumstances under which a cancellation of a void document is generally maintainable in civil court as opposed to a revenue court?
Key Points: - The civil court has jurisdiction where reliefs cannot be granted by the revenue court and a suit for declaration of void documents and injunction is involved (!) . - A suit for cancellation of a void document generally lies in the civil court, not the revenue court, unless a declaration of right or status as tenant holder is necessary, in which case relief is surplusage (!) . - The revision was dismissed at the admission stage, upholding civil court jurisdiction over the three reliefs sought in the suit (!) . - Reference to case law clarifying that a suit for void documents is not necessarily barred from the civil court; three reliefs prima facie cannot be granted by the revenue court (!) . - In the instant matter, mutation is pending and the plaintiff has prima facie right to have his name mutated as a son of Devi Prasad (!) . - Earlier judgments cited about the inapplicability of a Division Bench ruling that declared void documents lie in revenue court except where required (!) . - The Court relied on Full Bench reasoning that void document suits are generally civil, with some exceptions (!) . - Final decision: the revision under Section 115 CPC was dismissed; civil court jurisdiction confirmed (!) . - Advocates appeared: S. Singh, V.K. Yadav (!) .
( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 13. 1. 2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Havali, Junior Division, Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 755 of 1999 : Lala Ram v. Jagannath and Anr. , rejecting the application C-21 of the defendant-revisionist under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the Will dated 21. 1. 1981 executed by Devi Prasad, father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendants is void and further declaration that defendant no. 1 is the son of defendant No. 2 and he has no right to inherit the property of Devi Prasad, father of the plaintiff and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession over the disputed agricultural land. Defendant appeared and moved an application C-21 under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure with the allegations that the plaintiff has sought declaration of a bhumidhari property and his name is not mutated in the revenue record and without this, the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction cannot
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.