The central legal point established is that a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed based on fraud and misrepresentation is within the jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, even in the case of agricultural land disputes.

Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.

Heard Saima Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arjun Singh learned counsel for opposite party no. 1.

2. Opposite party no. 2 was issued notice through registered post as well as through the District Judge Gonda. The registered notice has come back undelivered whereas notice through District Judge is reported to have been returned with the remark of refusal. In these circumstances, notice to respondent no. 2 is deemed sufficient. It is to be noted that opposite party no. 2 did not participate in the proceedings before the court below.

3. Property in dispute is admittedly an agricultural property. The name of the petitioner was entered in the khatauni way back in the year 1993 consequent upon the death of one Raj Kumar on the basis of report in form PA-11 which is an annual report of succession submitted by supervisor kanungo.

4. It is revealed from the order dated 23.12.1993 that an application for mutation filed by opposite party no. 2, which was registered as case no. 215/566/1292 under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, was rejected for want of prosecution. Significantly, this order was passed after the petitioner/defendant had put in appearance in the mutation case whereas the plaintiff/opposite party no. 2 remained absent.

5. In the year 2005, a second application for mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act appears to have been filed by opposite party no. 2, on which, an ex parte order was passed on 20.8.2005 directing for entry of the name of one Ram Baran Singh as a legal heir of late Raj Kumar Singh and thus the name of opposite party no. 2 came to be recorded in the revenue record. This order passed on 20.8.2005 being ex parte gave rise to an objection at the end of the petitioner. On an objection being raised, the ex parte order passed on 20.8.2015 was recalled by order dated 30.8.2005 and thus the name of the petitioner was restored in the revenue record i.e. khatauni as is evident from annexure 2 to the writ petition but the proceedings remain pending.

6. It is revealed from the record that a sale-deed was executed by opposite party no. 2 in favour of opposite party no. 1 on 9.9.2005, which was registered on 12.9.2005 in respect of a part of the property. On the date of execution/registration of sale-deed, the name of the petitioner was duly recorded in the revenue record i.e. khatauni. The petitioner having come to know about the sale-deed filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed alleging therein that a fraud was committed by opposite party no. 2 in the execution of sale transaction through an impostor. It is also noticeable that the conduct of opposite party no. 2 regarding filing a fresh mutation application under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act was also exposed in the suit. It was stated that opposite party no. 2 had earlier filed an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act for mutation of his name in the revenue record but the first application was rejected after the petitioner had put an appearance in the mutation case, hence a fresh application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act would not be maintainable looking to the principle underlying Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C.

7. The suit for cancellation of sale-deed progressed and issues were framed. Issue no. 3 was framed on the strength of Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. and related to the very maintainability of suit proceedings before the civil court, inasmuch as, the land in dispute was admittedly agricultural land.

8. On this aspect of the matter, the trial court proceeded to consider the rival contentions as well as the evidence led by the parties and it was opined that since the dispute between the parties would involve adjudication on the question of title in respect of agricultural land, thus the suit would not be maintainable before the civil court. The plaint was rejected on the strength of objections raised under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. by the opposite party no. 2.

9. The judgment passed