Back
2019 Supreme(All) 513
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD BENCH AT LUCKNOW
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
Shanti Devi - Appellant
Versus
Sumant Prasad Major and Other - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 83 of 2005
Decided On : 23-04-2019
Q.M. Haque, Adv., Rakesh Srivastava, Adv., Krishna Singh, Adv.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, which outlines the jurisdiction of civil courts in suits related to land disputes.
Headnote:
C.P.C. - Suit Barred by Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act - [FACT OF THE CASE] The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking cancellation of a sale deed. The respondents contested the suit, claiming ownership of the disputed land. The trial court held the suit to be barred by Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the suit was indeed barred by Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and dismissed the appeal. [ISSUES] The main issue was whether the suit was barred under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court applied the provisions of Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and considered relevant case law to determine the jurisdiction of the civil court. [FINAL DECISION] The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' findings that the suit was barred by Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
Key Points: - (!) Section 331 restricts cognizance by civil courts to matters listed in Schedule II and related relief. - (!) Explanation: relief obtainable in a revenue court is relevant to jurisdiction under Section 331. - (!) Subsection (3) and (4): appeals and second appeals lie within Schedule II pathways; generally restricts civil court jurisdiction. - (!) Plaintiff-mutated records show respondents as recorded tenure holders, implying removal to Revenue Court per Sri Ram’s/Kamla cases. - (!) Shri Ram case cited for guidance on when civil court may or may not have jurisdiction. - (!) Courts held that cancellation of sale deed in presence of fraud/impersonation may require Revenue Court if title is not in cloud for a recorded tenure holder. - (!) Order VII Rule 10 CPC allows returning plaint for presentation in proper court; Rule 11 allows rejection if barred by law. - (!) - (!) Rule 11(d) empowerment to reject where suit appears barred by law; rejection vs. return distinction explained. - (!) - (!) Appeal limited to CPC grounds; Supreme Court guidance on jurisdiction and bar. - (!) Conclusion: lower courts rightly held suit barred; appellant’s submissions not persuasive.
What is the effect of Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act on the jurisdiction of civil courts in suits related to land, and whether the suit is barred under this provision?
What are the circumstances under which a suit for cancellation of sale deed can be barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, and when should a plaintiff be directed to approach the Revenue Court or be allowed to proceed in civil court?
What is the proper procedure when a plaint is barred by statute—whether to reject under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or to return under Rule 10 CPC, and how does this apply to the present case?
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
1. Heard Sri Q.M. Haque, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The appellant has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C.") against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2004 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Balrampur in Civil Appeal No.11 of 2003 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant (plaintiff in the original suit) filed a suit for permanent injunction, bearing Original Suit No.245 of 1993 titled as Shanti Devi vs. Sumant Prasad and others seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 25.01.1992. The case of the appellant was that the mother of the appellant, Ram Lali was the bhoomidhar of the disputed land in Gata No.366/0.40, 368/2.26 and 374/0.03 situated at village Paraspur Karonda Pargana and Tehsil Tulsipur, District Balrampur; she died leaving behind the appellant as her sole legal heir; the deceased, Smt. Ram Lali executed a registered Will dated 27.01.1978 in favour of the appellant; after the death of her mother, the appellant become the owner and in possession of the disputed land. It was alleged that the defendants No.3 and 4 have forged a Will dated 24.09.1988 and on the basis of said Will the land in dispute was mutated in the name of defendants. It was also alleged that the deceased Smt. Ram Lali had not executed any other Will except the Will dated 27.01.1978 in favour of the appellant. Hence, the appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 25.01.1992.
4. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein (defendants No.1 and 2 in the original suit) contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of plaintiff, namely, Shanti Devi was that Smt. Ram Lali was the owner and in possession of the land in dispute, she had executed a registered Will dated 24.09.1988 in favour of the respondents No.3 and 4, after the death of Ram Lali, respondent No.3 and 4 became the owners of plots in dispute. It was also stated that respondents No.3 and 4 have sold the disputed plots to the respondents No.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated 25.01.1992 and physical possession of the plots in question was delivered to respondents No.1 and 2. The respondents also stated that the appellant filed a Suit No.311 of 1992 titled as Smt. Shanti Devi vs. Sumant Prasad and another for permanent injunction on the ground that the appellant was the owner, the respondents had no concerned with the disputed plots and they were trying to take possession of the disputed plots illegally; In the said suit, the appellant did not mention about the registered will dated 24.09.1988; subsequently, the plaint was amended and the facts regarding Will dated 24.09.1988 and registered sale deed dated 25.01.1992 was incorporated; application for interim injunction was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge. Against the said judgment and decree, the appellant preferred an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No.20 of 1994, which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Gonda on 29.03.1995. Thereafter, the appellant has filed suit for cancellation of sale deed. It was contended by the respondents that the suit is barred by Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act").
5. On the pleadings of the parties amongst other issues, issue No.2 was framed by learned trial court that is whether suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
6. Vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2002 passed by learned Second Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balrampur, the suit was held to be barred by Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the plaint was rejected. Against the said judgment and decree dated 17.01.2002, the appellant filed Civil Appeal No.11/2003, the same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Balrampur, vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2004.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgm
