Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. The admitted facts between the parties are that Udai Ram had three sons namely, Jagannath, Om Prakash (plaintiff of original suit) and Ram Nath. Onkar Singh-defendant No.1 and Lokesh-defendant No. 2 are sons of Jagannath, who had died. It is admitted fact that Ram Nath had also died without any issue. After the death of their father Udai Ram, the plaintiff Om Prakash and his two brothers Jagannath and Ram Nath became his legal heirs and each became owner of 1/3rd share. It is also admitted fact that on 29.5.1981 the Ram Nath had executed a sale-deed on his whole 1/3rd share in disputed property in favour of defendant Onkar Singh and Lokesh. Admittedly the Ram Nath had died after about two years of execution of said sale-deed dated 29.5.1981. After this, on 10.3.1987, the plaintiff Om Prakash filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 29.5.1981.

3. The plaint case in original suit No.115/1988 was that Ram Nath was mentally ill and was like insane, so defendants have manipulated him and has got executed registered sale-deed dated 29.5.1981 on behalf of Ram Nath, regarding his share in disputed property, which is liable to be cancelled. The grounds taken in plaint for the cancellation of sale-deed were that Ram Nath had never executed the sale-deed in question. He had no need to execute the sale-deed, no consideration was paid to Ram Nath for said sale-deed, which was not read and explained to him, consideration mentioned in sale-deed is less, the defendant had no money to purchase the disputed land, and sale-deed was executed for dishonestly usurping the property. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the defendant came to know about sale-deed in January, 1987. Since he is legal heir of Ram Nath’s property, therefore his rights would be affected from this sale-deed, therefore he has filed suit for cancellation of said sale-deed.

4. In original suit the defendant filed joint written-statements by which they have denied the plaint’s averments and grounds mentioned for cancellation of sale-deed, and pleaded that Ram Nath had himself executed the sale-deed in question for a consideration of Rs. 27,000, which was proper consideration received by him and there is illegality in said sale-deed. The defendant had capacity to purchase the land in question, Ram Nath had willingly executed the sale-deed and plaintiff had knowledge of said deed from the date of it’s execution, therefore the suit is time-barred. No cause of action arose to plaintiff. The defendants are the owner of 2/3rd share in disputed property. By this suit the plaintiff wants to get the entries of revenue record cancelled and amended. For the relief sought the plaintiff should file suit in revenue Court, and his suit is barred by time under Section 331-A of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act. The Court has no jurisdiction to decide this suit and it is liable to be dismissed.

5. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned 3rd Additional Munsif, Bulandshahr had passed the judgement dated 29.3.1991 by which the plaintiff’s suit was decreed. A perusal of the judgment reveals that the trial Court had considered the statements of defendants’ witnesses Parmanand Munshi and Latoor Singh, and held that their statements are self contradictory. The trial Court had also held that there is no evidence that deceased Ram Nath was ill and how his property was partitioned, therefore it is not clear that how Ram Nath had given his free consent for the sale-deed. The trial Court has also held that jurisdiction for cancellation of sale-deed is with Civil Court. On these grounds the trial Court had decreed the suit.

6. Against the judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff of the original suit had preferred the Civil Appeal No. 70/1991 Onkar Singh and another v. Om Prakash, which was dismissed by the judgement dated 19.11.1991 of the Xth Additional Distri