Back
2007 Supreme(All) 2160
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Poonam Srivastava
SARLA DEVI GUPTA
Versus
RAVINDRA SINGH AND
Decided On : 17 August 2007
Second Appeal No. 138 of 2001
I.D.Shukla, Mohd.Arif Khan, MOHIUDDIN KHAN, S.K.Mehrotra,
The lease deed was found to be a voidable document and should have been challenged within the period of limitation after attaining majority.
Headnote:
LEASE DEED - CANCELLATION - U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act, 1950, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Evidence Act, Limitation Act, C. P. C. - [U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act, 1950, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Evidence Act, Limitation Act, C. P. C.] - The court discussed the admissibility of the certified copy of the lease deed, the bar of limitation, and the validity of the lease deed executed on behalf of a minor. The court found that the lease deed was not void but a voidable document and should have been challenged within the period of limitation after attaining majority. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court was set aside, and the suit was dismissed, restoring the judgment of the Trial Court.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for cancellation of a registered lease deed dated 4. 1. 1955 regarding two plots. The plaintiff claimed that the lease deed was invalid as it was executed on behalf of a minor and the signature of the mother was obtained under undue influence. The suit was initially filed in 1968 and was returned for filing in the appropriate Court, and was finally presented in 1981.
Finding of the Court:
The Lower Appellate Court found that the suit was not time-barred and relied on the high school certificate to determine the age of the plaintiff. However, the court held that the lease deed was not void but a voidable document and should have been challenged within the period of limitation after attaining majority. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court was set aside, and the suit was dismissed, restoring the judgment of the Trial Court.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of the certified copy of the lease deed, the bar of limitation, and the validity of the lease deed executed on behalf of a minor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the lease deed was not void but a voidable document and should have been challenged within the period of limitation after attaining majority. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court was set aside, and the suit was dismissed, restoring the judgment of the Trial Court.
Final Decision: The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court was set aside, and the suit was dismissed, restoring the judgment of the Trial Court.
Heard Sri S. K. Mehrotra, Counsel for the appellants and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohiuddin Khan, Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
2. This is defendants second appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 24. 2. 2001 in Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2000 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Unnao partly decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents No. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 17. 5. 2000 in Regular Suit No. 30 of 1981 dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The suit was instituted for cancellation of a registered lease deed dated 4. 1. 1955 regarding plot Nos. 1336 and 1340 situated at Bangermau, District Unnao. Lease deed is said to be executed by Smt. Nanhi Devi.
3. Facts of the case are that initially a Regular Suit No. 11 of 1968 was instituted in the Court of Munsif on 13. 8. 1968. The suit was kept pending for a considerable period and finally on 10. 4. 1981, plaint was returned under Order VII, Rule 10, C. P. C. for being filed in the appropriate Court. Thereafter, plaint was presented in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Unnao, on 7. 5. 1981 and suit was registered as a Regular Suit No. 30 of 1981.
4. Claim of the plaintiff was that plot No. 1336 having an area of 5 bighas and plot No. 1340 having an area of 13 biswa, 10 biswansi were recorded as a grove immediately before abolition of Zamindari and after Act No. 1 of 1951 was enforced, bhoomdhari right was acquired in respect of plot No. 1340. Father of the plaintiff Bhupal Singh @ Ganesh Singh was owner of plot No. 1336 having an area of 2 bighas, 2 biswa and 15 biswansi. A temple was constructed on the remaining area, which is not disputed. Bhupal Singh had half share of plot No. 1340 and other half belonged to defendant Nos. 1 to 7. The aforesaid areas were partitioned in family settlement.
5. Suit was instituted for cancellation of registered lease deed dated 4. 1. 1955, executed by Smt. Nanhi Devi on her behalf and also on behalf of minor son Ravindra Singh (Plaintiff No. 1) as well as other two sons. Chaudhary Sukhbir Singh and Gy-anendra Singh in favour of deceased Chaudhary Surendra Singh (defendant ). Other reliefs claimed was for possession, mesne profits and damages, and permanent prohibitory injunction.
6. Case of the plaintiff was that both the plots exclusively belonged to the plaintiff but the lease deed was executed by Smt. Nanhi Devi, which was invalid, as Ravindra Singh plaintiff No. 1 was minor and the signature of her mother Smt. Nanhi Devi was obtained on account of undue influence by her other sons Sukhbir Singh. Market was held on the above plot since a very long time, but only one year before, institution of the suit, when the plaintiff No. 1 held market on the plot he was interfered on 13. 8. 1968. It was for the first time, it came to his knowledge about the existence of lease deed which led to institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 13. 8. 1968 in the Court of Munsif, numbered as R. S. No. 11 of 1968, subsequently the plaint was returned on 10. 4. 1981 under Order VII, Rule 10, C. P. C. for presentation before appropriate Court. The plaint was thereafter presented on 7. 5. 1981 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Unnao, as R. S. No. 30 of 1981. The suit was dismissed on 17. 5. 2000. Against this order. Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2000 was preferred. The Additional District Judge, Unnao, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court on 24. 2. 2001.
7. The instant second appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 29. 3. 2001 on the following substantial questions of law :
" 1. Whether the suit for cancellation of lease deed and for recovery of possession said to be based on the same was liable to be dismissed for not filing the original deed in the suit?
2. Whether the secondary evidence of certified copy of the lease deed in question filed in the suit without following the procedure provided in
