Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3294
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.
Badruddin and 12 Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Ram Surat and 6 Ors. - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 476 of 2016
Decided On : 18-05-2016
For the Appellants :- M.J. Akhtar and V.M. Zaidi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:- Ajay Kumar Singh and Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocates.
The effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is to render transfers subservient to the rights of the parties under a decree or order, which may be decided in a suit.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - Section 229-B - Section 11 CPC - Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought the cancellation of a sale-deed executed by the defendants and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession of the disputed property. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the original suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their case.
Finding of the Court:
The first appellate court independently appreciated the evidence and legal position and held that the plaintiffs' suit is liable to be dismissed. The second appellate court confirmed the judgments of the lower courts, finding no illegality, error, or infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the sale-deed executed during the existence of a stay order, the binding nature of the judgment of the Board of Revenue, and the jurisdiction of the civil court to declare the plaintiffs as bhumidhar against the judgment of the revenue court.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts held that the sale-deed executed during the existence of a stay order is not illegal or void, but its effect is subject to the judgment and decree of the court passing such interim order. The judgment of the Board of Revenue in the second appeal was found to be binding on the parties, and the civil court had no jurisdiction to declare the plaintiffs as bhumidhar against the judgment of the revenue court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were confirmed.
Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. –
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act) Ist, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 128/2014.
2. In Original Suit No. 711 of 1997 (Amin & others v. Ram Surat & others), the paint case in brief was that plaintiffs are owner in possession, tenure holder and bhumidhar of agricultural plot no. 95 of village Pul Kohana, but name of defendants no. 1 and 2 was wrongly recorded in revenue records. For rectifying said error, case under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed in revenue court, which was decided in favour of plaintiffs. Against the judgment of trial court of S.D.M., the first appeal was preferred before the court of Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, which was dismissed. Second Appeal No. 58/1988-89 is pending before the Board of Revenue, in which said court had passed order dated 5.10.1989, by which parties were directed to maintain status quo. In spite of said interim order, defendants no. 1 and 2 had executed sale-deed of disput property in favour of defendant no. 3. This sale-deed is liable to be cancelled on the grounds that (a) the defendants are not owner and bhumidhar of disput property and had no right to execute sale-deed, (b) in view of stay order dated 5.10.1989 of revenue court, defendants no. 1 and 2 could not execute sale-deed, (c) the sale-deed in question is without consideration and was executed for harassing the plaintiff, (d) the property was not surveyed, and (e) there are other grounds of cancellation. In original suit, plaintiffs sought relief firstly of cancellation of sale-deed dated 29.11.1995 executed by defendants no. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant no.-3 and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of plaintiff.
3. In written-statement, the defendants denied the paint averments and pleaded that Second Appeal No. 58/1989 was decided by Board of Revenue in favour of defendants and it has been finally held that defendants are owner in possession of disput agricultural property. This judgment is binding on plaintiffs and his suit is barred by Section 11 CPC. It was also pleaded that the name of defendant no.-3 purchaser has been recorded in revenue records, and plaintiffs has no right to get the sale-deed in question cancelled and his suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), City, Varanasi had dismissed the original suit by its judgment dated 4.8.2014, in which it was specifically held that plaintiffs had failed to prove its case. Trial court had also held that from the documentary evidences, it is proved that defendants are bhumidhar of disput land with transferable rights and plaintiffs are not owner or in possession of such property.
5. Against the judgment of trial court, the Civil Appeal No. 128/2014 was preferred by the plaintiffs of the original suit, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 30.1.2016 of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act) Ist, Varanasi. In this judgment, first appellate court had independently appreciated the evidences and legal position and held that plaintiffs' suit is liable to be dismissed. First appellate court had framed point of determination as to whether during existence of stay order by competent court, the sale-deed executed by defendants no. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 is illegal or void. After considering legal position as well as the argument of the parties, the first appellate court had held that such sale-deed executed during existence of stay order are not illegal or void, but their effect is subject to judgment and decree of the court passing such interim order. With these findings, first appeal was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial court as well as the first appellate court, present Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs of the original suit.
7.
