Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.;—

Heard Sri Nipun Singh learned counsel for the applicants. Applicants are defendants in O.S. no.49 of 2009 which has been instituted against them by Smt. Vikram Kaur sole respondent in this revision.

The relief claimed in the suit is for declaration that sale deed dated 7.3.2007 shown to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant no.1, Smt. Anju and the subsequent sale deed dated 31.3.2008 by defendant no.1 to defendants no. 3 to 5 are null, void, ineffective and inoperative and for sending the information of the declaration to the Sub Registrar. Property in dispute is agricultural land. Defendants filed written statement and raised the plea of Bar of Jurisdiction. Issues were framed. Issue no.3 related to bar of jurisdiction i.e. as to whether suit was barred before civil court in view of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court no.3, Muzaffar Nagar through order dated 9.10.2012 held the suit to be maintainable before civil court. The said order has been challenged through this revision.

Defendants had also filed application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. The said application was also rejected by the impugned order.

Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are daughters of plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 to 5 are wives of brothers of husband of defendant no.1. In para 5 of the plaint it is stated that defendants no. 1 and 2 obtained the thumb impression of the plaintiff on the sale deed dated 7.3.2007 by telling her that the documents on which she was affixing her thumb impression related to grant of old age pension and that she was not given any amount as sale consideration and that plaintiff was in possession. Sale consideration in the sale deed was shown to be Rs.5/- lac. Defendants no. 1, 3 to 5 filed joint written statement denying the plaint allegations. In para 40 plea of bar of jurisdiction was raised stating therein that defendants names had been entered in the revenue record.

Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following authorities in support of his contention:

1. Deokinandan Vs. Surajpal 1995 Supplement(4) SCC 671

2. Sri Ram Vs. Ist A.D.J. AIR 2001 SC 1250

3. Kamla Prasad vs. Kishna Kant Pathak 2007(4)

4. Brijbala Vs. ADJ in writ petition no.58448 of 2012 decided on 21.11.2012

In the aforesaid authority of Sri Ram the facts were that one Vidyawati Devi executed sale deed of her agricultural land in favour of plaintiffs on 12.7.1984. The defendants asserted that Smt. Vidyawati Devi had executed sale deed in their favour on 24.7.1984. Smt. Vidyawati Devi admitted the earlier sale deed in favour of the plaintiff but denied the sale deed in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the subsequent sale deed on the ground that instead of Vidyawati Devi some other woman posing herself as Vidyawati Devi had executed the sale deed. The Supreme Court held that suit was maintainable before the Civil Court. However, it appears that until filing of the suit the name of the defendants had not been entered in the revenue record and name of the plaintiff was continuing in the revenue record.

In the authority of Kamla Prasad the facts were quite different. The recorded tenure holder had executed a sale deed. Plaintiff filed the suit stating therein that even though he was not recorded tenure holder but along with recorded tenure holder he also had share in the land in dispute. In view of this the Supreme Court held that suit for cancellation of the sale deed was not maintainable before the Civil court. In the said case reliance was placed upon Sri Ram Vs. A.D.J.(supra). In the said case it was also held that as defendants names had been recorded in the revenue record hence suit was not maintainable.

In the aforesaid authority of Sri Ram, Full Bench authority of this court reported in Ram Padarath Vs. A.D.J.1989 AWC 290 was specifically approved and reference was also made to Smt. Bismillah vs. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 540. The fol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document