The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in suits for cancellation of sale deed and possession is determined by the provisions of Section 331 of the Act, and the suit should be filed before the revenue court as per the specific nature of the reliefs sought.

Alok Singh, J.

1. Present petition is preferred by defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3/petitioner, herein, assailing the judgment and order dated 29.4.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in OS No. 70 of 2009, Smt. Vimla Devi and others v. Charan Singh and others, whereby issue no. 5 to the effect as to whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit for cancellation of sale deed and for possession was decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs saying Civil Court has jurisdiction, as well as judgment and order dated 20.7.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Revision No. 27 of 2013, whereby revision filed by the defendants/petitioners, herein, was dismissed upholding the judgment and order of learned Trial Court on issue no. 5.

2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiffs i.e. respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, herein, have filed civil suit being OS No. 70 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rudrapur for seeking following reliefs:

“(A) by the decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants sale deed dated 26.4.1999, which was got registered in Book No. I, Chapter 45, page 121-133 at Serial No. 1217 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar and sale deed dated 4.1.200 registered in Book No. I, Chapter, 68, page no. 241-256 at Serial No. 07 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar executed by Sri Bechen Singh, husband of defendant no. 4 and father of defendant nos. 5 & 6 may be declared void and accordingly be cancelled and information thereof may be forwarded to the Sub-Registrar.

(B) A decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 to handover peaceful actual physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.

(C) Such reliefs may also be granted in favour of the plaintiffs, which are just and proper in the opinion of the court.”

3. It is averred in the plaint that late Sri Paramdev Singh, father-in-law of plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3, was the sole bhumidhar in possession of the suit property; Sri Bechen Singh had absolutely no right, title or possession over the suit property, however, being nephew of Sri Paramdev Singh, Bechen Singh was managing the property as agent of Sri Paramdev Singh; Bechen Singh got his name mutated over the property in question in the revenue record by playing fraud without consent and knowledge of Sri Paramdev Singh, the sole bhumidhar of the property in question; since Bechen Singh was not the bhumidhar/owner of the property in question, therefore, he was having absolutely no right, title or authority to execute the sale deed of the suit property, however, he has illegally executed the sale deeds in question in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 and has illegally delivered the possession of the suit property in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3, therefore, sale deeds in question executed by Bechen Singh in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 be declared void and accordingly be cancelled and possession of the suit property should be directed to be handed over back to the plaintiffs.

4. Having appeared before the Trial Court, defendants took several pleas in defence including the plea that suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court was pleased to frame issue no. 5 to the effect as to whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question?

6. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court were pleased to hold that since names of the plaintiffs are recorded in the revenue record, therefore, suit for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by Bechen Singh in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 would be maintainable before the Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved, defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3/petitoners, herein, have preferred present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution