Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.N.Srivastava
S N SRIVASTAVA
Versus
IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI
Decided On : 30 October 2002
C. M. W. P. No. 5798 of 1983
void document - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 31 of the Specific Reliefs Act, Section 331 (1) of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act - 31, 331
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a declaratory suit claiming a sale-deed to be void and sought its cancellation, along with injunction and possession. The trial Court held the suit maintainable in Civil Court, but the Revisional Court reversed the decision, holding it not maintainable in Civil Court and cognizable by the Revenue Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the jurisdiction of Civil Court in suits for cancellation of voidable documents and the implications of the Specific Reliefs Act and U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. It found that a recorded tenure holder or an executant/successor could file suit in Civil Court for cancellation of void document, but a third person's claim involving declaration of rights lies in Revenue Courts.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court in suits for cancellation of voidable documents, applicability of Specific Reliefs Act and U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, and competence of third parties to file such suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that suits for cancellation of voidable documents are maintainable in Civil Courts, unless the document is cancelled or adjudged void. It emphasized that the cause of action determines the jurisdiction of the Court, and a third person's claim involving declaration of rights lies in Revenue Courts.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition in part, directing the trial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate Court.
This petition has been filed canvassing the validity of the judgment dated 24-1-1983 passed by the Revisional Court thereby allowing the revision and holding suit not maintainable in Civil Courts. As a necessary consequence, the judgment dated 22-8-1982 passed by Munsif Haveli, Varanasi in O. S. No. 141 of 1982 was reversed.
2. The facts may be stated in brevity and with appropriateness and they are that petitioner Kishori Prasad Instituted a declaratory suit claiming that sale-deed executed on 17-4-1981 was void document and the same be declared as void and communication be made to be Registrar Varanasi accordingly. The further relief claimed in the suit is for injunction and for possession. According to the plaint allegations, the land in dispute is a plot bearing No. 92/1 admeasuring 6 decimal situated in village Rohta, district Varanasi that one Hanuman arrayed as Defendant No. 2 was Bhumidhar of the land in dispute; that the claim of the plaintiff was based on alleged sale-deed dated 24- 11-1981 executed by Hanuman Defendant No. 2; that Smt. Munni Devi Defendant No. 1 and his two minor sons got a registered sale- deed executed in their favour on 17-4-1981 and obtained illegal possession of a portion of the property during the pendency of proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. on 23-1-1982; that Defendant No. 2 never executed any sale-deed; that so-called sale-deed in favour of Defendant No. 1 is forged and fictitious document and it was induced by someone who personated himself to be Defendant No. 2; that the plaintiff gained knowledge of sale- deed on 30th January, 1982 and then cause of action arose for its cancellation. The defendant in the written statement repudiated the plaint allegations. The case taken in the written statement inter-alia was that they are in actual physical possession of the land in dispute; that the sale-deed in question was executed by Hanuman Defendant No. 2 who has also conceded this fact in his written statement filed in this case; that the defendant is a widowed lady and his two sons are minors and taking advantage of her widowed-hood, the plaintiff got a forged sale-deed executed on 24- 11-1981 with the avowed intention of usurping her land and the sale-deed is a forged paper; that the Defendant No. 1 and his two minor sons are recorded tenure holders in the revenue record and that the suit is not cognizable by Civil Court and it necessarily entails declaration of the title.
3. The trial Court framed issue No. 3 relating to jurisdiction and decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff. The quintessence of what has been held by the trial Court is that the suit for declaration of disputed sale-deed dated 7-4-1981 was maintainable in Civil Court. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner preferred a revision which culminated in being allowed holding that the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court and the same was cognizable by the Revenue Court. A review was filed by the petitioner which ended up in being dismissed vide judgment and order dated 14-3-1983.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit for declaration that the sale-deed was null and void is maintainable in Civil Court notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was a recorded tenure-holder and on this ground the judgment of the Revisional Court holding that the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court, was liable to be set aside and the matter may be relegated to the Civil Court for adjudication. In aid of his contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance on various decisions. Sri Aditya Narain, in opposition, contended that the defendants are recorded tenure holders and the plaintiff is not either executant of the sale-deed or for matter of that a successor but happens to be a third party and the claim of the petitioner necessarily involves declaration of Bhumidhari rights. He further contended that the land was and continues to be recorded as Bhumidhari land and no declaration
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
