The main legal point established is that a suit for cancellation of a sale deed may not be maintainable in the Civil Court if the land in question is agricultural and the plaintiff has no title over it, as per Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

V.K. Bist, J.

Instant Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2011 passed by the District Judge, Nainital in First Appeal No. 35 of 2009 and also against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2009 passed in Civil Suit No. 59 of 2009 ‘Smt. Sushila Devi vs. Trilok Singh and others’.

2. Plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for declaring the registered sale deed dated 15.02.2005 as null and void and also for cancellation of the same, executed by defendant/ respondent nos. 2 to 4 in favour of defendant/ respondent no.1 in respect of 468.31 square feet land, situated at village Kusum Khera, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. Another prayer was made in the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/ respondents from interfering in the land in question.

3. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that the father of the appellant was absolute owner of land measuring 4 Bigha 10 Biswas situated in village Kusum Khera, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. On 19.09.1990, the father of the appellant executed a registered Will, by virtue of which, a house constructed over plot no. 3A measuring 11.8 X 60 feet, bounded on the east and north by public road, was bequeathed to the plaintiff/appellant. The plaintiff/appellant is in possession over the land and house from the time of her father. After the death of the father of the plaintiff/appellant in the year 2003, the defendant/respondent nos. 2 to 4 who are the real brothers of the plaintiff/appellant got their names mutated in revenue records and on the basis of the entries, transferred the part of the land, which was bequeathed by the father of the plaintiff/appellant in her favour. The plaintiff/appellant was not aware about this fact and she instituted a suit for partition in the Court of Civil Judge, Haldwani. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the same. On the basis of the Will executed by her father, the plaintiff/appellant got her name mutated over 0.014 hectors of land in plot no. 3A, alongwith her sister Nirmala Devi on 06.02.2009. After getting her name mutated in revenue records, she filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed. The respondent no.1 and respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed their separate written statements refuting the plaint allegations. The respondents also filed an application under Order-VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging therein that since the name of the plaintiff/ appellant is not entered in revenue records; she has no title over the land in question, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff/appellant filed objection against the said application and stated that the name of the plaintiff/appellant is recorded in revenue records. The learned Civil Judge, allowed the application filed by the respondents under Order-VII Rule-11 C.P.C. on the ground that since name of the plaintiff/appellant is not recorded in the revenue records, which she herself admitted in the plaint, the suit is not maintainable and in such circumstances, the plaintiff/appellant should get her title declared first from the revenue Court. The appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant was also dismissed on the same ground. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below, the plaintiff/appellant filed present appeal before this Court.

4. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether suit for cancellation of sale deed instituted by the daughter of a person from whom she got property in question, could be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

2. Whether the learned Courts below erred in dismissing the suit of plaintiff/appellant on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act?

5. Heard Sri J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire material available on record.

6. Learned counse