Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Manoj Kumar -Appellant
Versus
District Judge, Jaunpur and others -Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 40487 of 2008
Decided On : 26-07-2011
Section 331 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - 145, 170, 6 - 4, 466, 352, 33, 393, 221, 914, 32, 2271, 229-B - The court discussed the applicability of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and its impact on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It referred to relevant case laws and interpreted the nature of relief sought in the original suit to determine the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a suit filed for cancellation of an unregistered Will and declaration of property in dispute. The petitioner claimed that the suit was barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit for cancellation of the alleged Will was maintainable before the Civil Court, as the relief sought did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of relief sought in the original suit, which was for cancellation of the alleged Will, did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court as per Section 331 of the 1950 Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as lacking merit, with no costs imposed.
The writ petition is directed against the order dated 17th January, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jaunpur rejecting application no.50-C of petitioner-Manoj Kumar raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of Original Suit No.436 of 2004 (Indu Devi v. Manoj Kumar) on the ground that suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “1950 Act”) and the revisional order dated 26th May, 2008 passed by District Judge, Jaunpur dismissing Revision No.9 of 2008 of the petitioner. The Facts giving rise to the dispute in the present writ petition may be stated as under.
2. One Fateh Bahadur Singh, husband of Smt. Indu Devi (respondent No.3) possessed some movable and immovable property and died on 12th February, 2002. The petitioner is the son of Sri Amar Bahadur Singh, brother of Fateh Bahadur Singh. He claimed that Fateh Bahadur Singh had executed a Will 7th February, 2002, though it was unregistered, and on the basis thereof got his name mutated in respect to the immovable property of Late Fateh Bahadur Singh. Respondent No.3 filed Original Suit No.436 of 2004 for cancellation of unregistered Will dated 7th February, 2002 in respect to the disputed property, as detailed at the bottom of the plaint, which reads as under:
^^rQlhy tk;nkn en vokdk ekStk Hkqbyk ijxuk [kijgk rg0 lnj ftyk tkSuiqjA
rQlhy vkjkth o okdk ekStk Hkqbyk ijxuk [kijgka rg0 lnj ftyk tkSuiqjA
[kkrk ua0 145 vk0 ua0 2,&797 gs0 esa 1@4 va'k
o [kkrk ua0 170 vk0 ua0 3@4 &466 esa 1@4 va'k
o [kkrk la0 6 vk0 ua0 6@352@33@393] 221@&914] 32@2271 tqeyk 4 xkVk 1@930 gs0 esa 1@8 va'k**
3. The petitioner-defendant put in appearance in the aforesaid suit and filed an application dated 27th March, 2006 raising a preliminary objection that suit is without jurisdiction and liable to be dismissed as not maintainable being barred by Section 331 of 1950 Act. It is stated that property in dispute, referred to in the suit, is all such land as is governed by 1950 Act and therefore it is barred by Section 331 of 1950 Act. It is contended that plaintiff-respondent No.3 had no right to file the said suit unless seeks a declaration from the Revenue Court regarding her status as Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. It is this application, which has been rejected by both the Courts below, whereagainst this writ petition has been filed.
4. Sri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that name of the petitioner was already mutated in revenue records in place of Late Fateh Bahadur Singh and he was recorded as Bhumidhar. The petitioner has also possession over the property of Late Fateh Bahadur Singh. In the circumstances respondent No.3 ought to have sought a declaration by filing a suit in the Revenue Court under Section 229-B of 1950 Act and suit filed in Civil Court under Section 9 C.P.C. was barred by Section 331 of 1950 Act. He placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh & Ors., 1973 R.D. 423 (SC), a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Padarath & Ors. v. Second Add. D.J., Sultanpur, 1989 R.D. 21 and a Single Judge decision in Bhurey Lal v. District Judge, Budaun & Ors., 1997 (88) RD 149.
5. Per contra, Sri U.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 contended that the suit was filed for cancellation of unregistered Will dated 7th February, 2002 and for declaration of property in dispute as that of the plaintiff on the ground that it was a forged and fictitious document prepared fraudulently and illegally hence the suit filed before Civil Court is not barred. He placed reliance on Apex Court decision in Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad, 1990 SCC (1) 207 and a Single Judge decision in Barkhu & Ors v. Vth Additional District Judge, Basti, 2004(97) R.D. 168.
6. I have heard Sri Namwar Singh for the petitioner, Sri U.B. Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.3 at length and has perused the record as also the aut
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
