A lawsuit for cancellation of a sale deed can be maintained in civil court when the plaintiff has prima facie title, despite the sale deed being based on fraud, as jurisdiction under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is not precluded.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Madhav Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908 has been filed with a prayer to call for the records and after its perusal, this instant second appeal may be allowed and further be pleased to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2016 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.310 of 2003 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Lucknow and the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2003 passed in Regular Suit No.156 of 1995 by the VI^th Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Court No.38, Lucknow or pass any other suitable decree which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the interest of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (here-in-after referred as Act of 1950) as the name of defendant-respondents was recorded in the revenue records, therefore, the suit could have been filed only before the Revenue Court with a prayer for declaration of his rights. He further submitted that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, also no relief could have been granted by the Civil Court.

4. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the defendant- appellants submitted that the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below are not tenable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside. He relied on Rajni Tandon Versus Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar and another ; (2009) 14 SCC 782 , Shri Ram and another Versus Ist Addl. Distt. Judge and others ; (2001) 3 SCC 24, Kamla Prasad and others Versus Kishna Kant Pathak and others ; (2007) 4 SCC 213 , Narendra Kumar Mittal and others Versus Nupur Housing Development Pvt.Ltd. And Another ; 2019 Legal Eagle (SC) 797/ 2019 (7) JT 553 and Kundan Singh Versus Addl.District Judge, Bijnore and others ; 2008 SCC OnLine All 2050

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit was filed only for cancellation of sale deed and no prayer for injunction was made, therefore, the plea of learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that possession was required to be pleaded is misconceived and not tenable as it was not in issue. He further submitted that the suit for cancellation of sale deed was rightly filed before the Civil Court as no declaration of title was required because admittedly the plaintiff-respondent was bhumidhar of the land in dispute and therefore the suit was filed on the ground of fraud. He further submitted that the Power of Attorney was a void document as it was not executed by the plaintiff-respondent and sale deed was got executed on the basis of the said void document, therefore, the sale deed was required to be cancelled considering its veracity. Even otherwise the Power of Attorney does not give any title.

6. On the basis of above learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent submitted that the courts below have passed the judgment and decrees in accordance with law, which does not require any interference by this court. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal, therefore, it does not require even admission. Thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He relied on Shakeel Ahmed Versus Syed