Back
2007 Supreme(UK) 28
2007 UAD 439
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Civil Appeal No. 3659 of 2003
KAMLA PRASAD AND ORS. – Appellants
Versus
SRI KRISHNA KANT PATHAK & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 09.02.2007
For the Respondents:Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Ms. Anju, Ms. Sheela, Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. D.N. Dubey, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra and Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Advocates
Headnote:U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, Sec. 229-B — Suit for cancellation of sale deed as regards agricultural land — Jurisdiction for — Such suit filed in Civil Court on ground that plaintiff-seller had no authority to execute such sale-deed as some other persons were also co-bhoomidhars of disputed land — However, names of such alleged co-bhoomidhars were not entered in revenue record — Names of defendant purchasers mutated in place of name of plaintiff-seller — Defendants-purchasers put in possession also in pursuance of such sale-deed — Lower court as well as Appellate Court right in holding that question of right, title and interest of other persons as co-bhoomidhars in disputed land can be decided by Revenue Court in suit instituted under Sec. 229-B of Z.A. & L.R. Act — Question of legality or otherwise of insertion of names of purchasers in record of Rights and deletion of name of plaintiff from such record can only be decided by Revenue Court since names of purchasers had already been entered into — Lower Court wholly right in reaching conclusion that such suit could be entertained only by Revenue Court and Civil Court had no jurisdiction. (Paras 12 to 17)
mdizd tehankjh fouk'k ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj vf/kfu;e] 1950 /kkjk 229&ch & df"k Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa fod;&i= ds jíhdj.k gsrq okn ds fy, {ks=kf/kdkj & ,slk okn nhokuh U;k;ky; esa bl vk/kkj ij lafLFkr fd;k x;k fd oknh&fodsrk dks ,slk fod; i= fu"ikfnr djus dk dksbZ izkf/kdkj ugha Fkk D;ksafd dqN vU; O;fDr Hkh fookfnr Hkwfe ds lg&Hkwfe/kj gSa & ;|fi ,sls vfHkdfFkr lg&Hkwfe/kjksa ds uke jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa ntZ ugha gq, & izfroknh&dsrkx.k ds uke oknh&fodsrk ds uke ds LFkku ij ukekUrfjr gks x;s & ,sls fod;&i= ds voyacu esa izfroknh&dsrkx.k dks dCtk Hkh iznku dj fn;k x;k & fuEu U;k;ky; lkFk gh lkFk vihyh; U;k;ky; us lgh fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd fookfnr Hkwfe esa vU; O;fDr;ksa dk lg&Hkwfe/kj ds :i esa vf/kdkj] gd o ykHk dk iz'u jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 229&ch] tdfod ,oa Hkwdlqd vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr lafLFkr okn esa fu.khZr fd;k tk ldrk gS & oS/kkfudrk ;k vU;Fkk vf/kddkj ds vfHkys[kksa esa dsrkx.k ds ukeksa ds ntZ djus rFkk ,sls vfHkys[kksa ls oknh ds uke dkVs tkus dk iz'u dsoy jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk fu.khZr fd;k tk ldrk gS ih MCY;w afd dsrkx.k ds uke mlesa igys gh ntZ gks pqds gSa & fuEu U;k;ky; fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pus esa iw.kZr% lgh gS fd ,slk okn dsoy jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk lquk tk ldrk gS rFkk nhokuh U;k;ky; dk dksbZ {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gSA ¼izLrj 12 ls 17½
C.K. Thakker, J. — This appeal is filed by the appellant-original defendant Nos. 1 to 6 against an order dated August 10, 2001, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 386 of 1990.
2. One Kishna Kant Pathak-respondent No. 1 herein, filed a suit against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 12 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaunpur being Suit No. 110 of 1984. It was averred in the suit that an agreement to sell dated June 18, 1981 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6, sale deed dated November 7, 1981 executed in their favour and another sale deed, dated December 16, 1981 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were illegal, without authority of law and null and void. A prayer was, therefore, made to cancel those documents. It was stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that he and defendant Nos. 10 to 12 were co-bhoomidhars of the disputed land and as such defendant Nos. 10 to 12 had also right in the disputed property. The names of defendant Nos. 10 to 12, however, were not entered in the Revenue Record and only the name of plaintiff was recorded. But in view of shares of defendant Nos. 10 to 12, plaintiff alone had no right, title or interest to sell the property.
3. It was also alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff that he had developed bad habits and defendant Nos. 1 to 9 took undue advantage of the said situation. The plaintiff was under intoxication and the documents got executed by contesting defendants. The plaintiff did not remember the execution of the sale deed and its presentation before the Sub-Registrar, Kerakat. He did not execute the sale deeds with his freewill and on his own accord. Nothing was paid to him. He was given tablets by defendant Nos. 1 to 9 and he became unconscious. At the time of execution of sale deed, the plaintiff was unconscious and was unable to understand judgment of his act. Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 became vendees on the basis of sale deeds but they were liable to be cancelled in view of the circumstances under which the documents were executed by the plaintiff.
4. The contesting defendants raised several contentions including the contention as to the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain, deal with and decide the suit. It was contended that in respect of cancellation of deeds as regards agricultural land, the suit was not entertainable by a Civil Court as only Court which had jurisdiction was Revenue Court under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It ewas prayed by the defendants to treat the issue as to jurisdiction of the Court as preliminary issue and decide it.
5. The Trial Court, after considering the contentions of the parties, held that the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court so far as abadi land was concerned. It had, however, no jurisdiction in respect of agricultural land and to that extent, the preliminary objection raised by the contesting defendants was well-founded and was upheld.
6. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred an appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 242 of 1986. The appeal came up for hearing before the III Additional District Judge, jaunpur who confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Dealing with submission of the parties, the Appellate Court observed that the Trial Court was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to validity of sale-deeds in respect of agricultural land, particularly in view of the case put forward by the plaintiff in the plaint that over and above the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 10 to 12 had also share therein. Such a suit, according to the Appellate Court could be entertained only by Revenue Court. According to the Appellate Court, how much share belongs to plaintiff in the disputed land was a question which could be determined only by Revenue Court. He was, therefore, obliged to file suit for decl
