The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate controversies related to the cancellation of sale deeds based on fraud and deceit, and that Revenue courts are not equipped to effectively adjudicate on such matters.

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

All these cases are being taken up together as these challenge to the same order dated 01.04.2016 of the Trial Judge rendered in two different parts.

2. Having heard learned counsels of either party, it transpires that an Original Suit No.117 of 2010 was pending adjudication, wherein the plaintiff Mr. Jitin Nikhanj sought the relief, inter alia, for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 26.06.2006/registered on 01.08.2006, executed by Mr. Anil Srivastava (respondent no.2) in favour of Mr. S.C. Mathur (defendant no.1).

3. The counter claim was also filed by Mr. Anil Srivastava seeking cancellation of Sale Deed dated 07.03.2000, executed by Mr. Sarvjeet Singh Nikhanj (father) in favour of Mr. Jitin Nikhanj (own son).

4. It has not been disputed that the property was owned by Mr. Anil Srivastava, who executed a registered power of attorney on 28.11.1997 in favour of Mr. Sarvjeet Singh Nikhanj. On the strength of the power of attorney, Mr. Sarvjeet Singh Nikhanj executed the Sale Deed dated 07.03.2000 in favour of his son Mr. Jitin Nikhanj.

5. It has been in the averment that Mr. Anil Srivastava cancelled that power of attorney by way of sending a letter dated 05.12.1997 to Mr. Sarvjeet Singh Nikhanj and such letter was sent by post.

6. It is under dispute that whether such letter could ever be received by Mr. Sarvjeet Singh Nikhanj before executing the Sale Deed dated 07.03.2000 in favour of his son. Further, it is also legal controversy whether a registered power of attorney can be cancelled merely by sending a simple letter under the signature of its’ executor.

7. Since, Mr. Anil Srivastava executed a separate Sale Deed in favour of Mr. S.C. Mathur on 26.06.2006 (supra), hence on moving an application to the Revenue authorities, the name of Mr. S.C. Mathur was recorded without any service on Mr. Jitin Nikhanj. So, Mr. Jitin Nikhanj applied for cancellation of the name of Mr. S.C. Mathur from such records.

8. Further, it appears that the names of either parties were kept on changing in the Revenue records very frequently at the initiation of one against the other without having been that the matter heard ever sincerely on merits and that is why, the claim and counter claim have been filed for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by each other.

9. The preliminary issue was raised by the defendants Mr. S.C. Mathur as well as Mr. Anil Srivastava, questioning the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter. It was pleaded that the suit was barred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because the trial of such suit could not have been proceeded as barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

10. Learned Court below has passed impugned judgment deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs on jurisdiction point to the effect that it is the only forum of Civil Court, which can appropriately adjudicate the controversy in the present matter, and not the Revenue Court. A number of precedents have been relied upon by learned Trial Judge and this Court would not burden its finding by reproducing all of them.

11. The premise of retaining the jurisdiction for adjudication by the Civil Judge was that since the theme of fraud, deceit and fabrication is in the pivot for cancellation of the sale deed, as averred by both the parties, hence, it can only be adjudicated by the Civil Court. Simply the entries in the Revenue records do not confer the title to the person, whose name is there. Suit of such nature is decided by the Civil Court and not by Revenue court.

12. This has been decided by Allahabad High Court as well, in the case of Smt. Mangli Devi vs. Kamlesh Kumar & Others, 2004 (96) RD 343. In case of “Horil Vs. Keshav and another”, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 525, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that Revenue courts are neither equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on allegations of fraud that have overtones of criminality and the courts really skilled and experienced to try such issues are the courts constituted