Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.C. AGRAWAL, U.C.SRIVASTAVA, B.L.LOOMBA, JJ.
Ram Padarath - Appellant
Versus
Second Addl. District Judge, Sultanpur – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1732 of 1982
Decided on: Sep 26, 1988
Jurisdiction - Civil Court and Revenue Court - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act
Fact of the Case:
The controversy regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Court and Revenue Court in entertaining a suit regarding agricultural land has engaged the attention of several Division Benches. The case under reference involved relief of cancellation of a sale-deed and permanent injunction claimed on the ground that the same was executed by someone personating for the plaintiff who still continued to be tenure-holder in possession of the land in question. The ambit and interpretation of Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was also considered.
Finding of the Court:
Suits for cancellation of void or voidable instruments and documents are essentially suits of civil nature and are cognizable by a civil court. The jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted if the relief can be granted by the special court conferred with jurisdiction to grant such reliefs. The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities or courts is wider than that of civil or revenue court and adjudication by them is final and cannot be reopened by any civil or revenue court.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of Civil Court and Revenue Court in entertaining suits regarding agricultural land, particularly in relation to the cancellation of void or voidable instruments and documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The real 'cause of action' determines the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a particular action, and it is the pith and substance which is to be seen and not the language used which may even have been so used to oust the jurisdiction of a particular court. The relief of cancellation of void document is more appropriate for clearing the title and burying any dispute or controversy on its basis. The jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities is wider than that of civil or revenue court, and adjudication by them is final and cannot be reopened by any civil or revenue court.
Final Decision: The court held that suits for cancellation of void or voidable instruments and documents are cognizable by a civil court, and the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted if the relief can be granted by the special court conferred with jurisdiction to grant such reliefs. The decisions given under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act even in respect of void documents do not conclusively resolve the controversy regarding the jurisdiction of civil court and revenue court with reference to Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The jurisdiction of civil courts and revenue courts in cases involving agricultural land is primarily determined by the "cause of action" and the relief sought. The court's focus is on the substantive issues rather than the specific language used in pleadings (!) (!) .
Suits for the cancellation of void or voidable instruments are generally of a civil nature and are cognizable by civil courts. However, if a specific court or authority is conferred with jurisdiction to grant such reliefs, the jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted (!) (!) .
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act provides a statutory remedy for cancellation of void or voidable instruments, and such suits are to be filed in civil courts. The decree of cancellation is binding only on parties to the suit and does not automatically affect third parties unless properly noted in official records (!) (!) .
Void documents, which are executed without lawful authority or due to incapacity, do not require cancellation; their legal effect is nullified once declared void, but their existence can cause complications and disputes if not properly addressed (!) (!) .
Voidable documents, obtained through coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, require cancellation to be legally effective. Such documents can be challenged in civil courts, and the relief of declaration or cancellation is typically sought in civil proceedings (!) (!) .
The primary criterion for jurisdiction is the "cause of action"—the facts necessary to support the plaintiff’s right—rather than the relief claimed or the language used in pleadings. The "relief" can include any remedy flowing from the cause of action, even if not explicitly claimed (!) (!) .
When multiple reliefs are claimed, the court examines whether the principal or real relief can be granted by a particular forum. If the main relief is one that can only be granted by a revenue court, then the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted (!) .
The scope of Section 331 of the relevant Act, along with its Explanation, is to prevent frivolous jurisdiction pleas and to clarify that jurisdiction depends on the "cause of action" rather than the relief claimed. The section aims to ensure that only genuine jurisdictional issues are raised at the appropriate stage (!) (!) .
The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities is broader than that of civil or revenue courts, and their decisions are final and binding. They can determine rights, titles, and interests over land, including in cases involving void documents, and their findings are conclusive (!) (!) (!) .
The legal effect of a declaration that a document is void is binding on the parties involved but may not automatically affect third parties unless properly recorded. Such declarations help clarify title and prevent future disputes (!) .
The interpretation of statutory provisions should consider the reasons and objects of the law, not just the literal language, especially when the legislature aims to prevent frivolous or technical objections that delay justice (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that the "cause of action" and the "real relief" involved are the key determinants for jurisdiction, rather than the specific reliefs or the language used in pleadings. Proper identification of the cause of action guides the appropriate forum for litigation (!) (!) .
The provisions of different statutes, such as the civil procedure code and specific land laws, should be read harmoniously
U. C. Srivastava, J.
1. The controversy regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Court and Revenue Court in entertaining a suit regarding agricultural land seems to have not ended during the past more than 40 years and the same has engaged the attention of several Division Benches. The entertainability of the suit regarding cancellation of void instrument and documents has engaged the attention of various Benches in the past. This reference to the Full Bench has been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court who earlier after taking into consideration various decisions had taken the view in Indra Dev v. Smt. Ram Piari, 1982 (8) ALR 517, that such suits are cognizable by the civil court. The reference in question was made on the ground that the Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri Prasad, 1981 AWC 469, holding the contrary view that such suits are cognizable by the revenue court was not taken notice of.
2. In the case under reference relief of the cancellation of the sale-deed and permanent injunction was claimed on the ground that the same was executed by some one personating for the plaintiff who still continued to be tenure-holder in possession of the land in question.
Few other cases involving the question of jurisdiction of civil court and revenue court regarding agricultural land have also been grasped alongwith this writ petition involving the ambit and interpretation of Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, as such this aspect which was also argued has been considered in this judgment.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties canvassing one view or the other.
4. Suit for cancellation of a sale-deed or other instruments and documents are essentially suits of civil nature. Every suit of civil nature is cognizable by a civil court except cognizance of which is expressly or impliedly barred.
In Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani, AIR 1966 SC 1718, it was observed :
"It is settled principle that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of civil court to establish his contention. It is also equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly construed."
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act makes specific provision for cancellation of void as well as voidable instrument. Suits for cancellation of such documents being of civil nature are cognizable by a civil court and even otherwise suits claiming relief provided under Specific Relief Act are entertainable only by a civil court and no revenue court or any other court can entertain such a suit including for cancellation of an instrument or document. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under :
"Section 31. When cancellation may be ordered- (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable, and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the facts of its cancellation."
Thus one who has reasonable apprehension that any instrument if left outstanding may cause him serious injury can approach a competent court of law to get it cancelled. Sub-section (2) of Section 31 casts a mandatory duty upon the court passing a decree to send a copy of the same to the registering officer, who is enjoined by law to make a note on the copy of such document regarding the order of its cancellation passed by a particular court and after such an endorsement is made, the document becomes legally ineffective and no benefit of the same can be derived by any one. If a
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
