U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – s. 331 – First respondent-plaintiff purchased disputed property from the second respondent-first defendant under five sale deeds, all dated 17.10.1998 – Plaintiff found that first defendant had illegally sold the disputed property through four registered sale deed all dated 15.06.2006 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 – Suit filed by plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.06.2006 and also for injunction restraining defendants from interfering with its possession – Appellant-defendant No.2 questioned the maintainability of the suit having regard to s.331 of the Act – Civil Court held the suit maintainable – Revision petition by the defendant No.2 was also dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: The plaintiff had not sought any relief with respect to its own right and title as a tenure holder or declaration of its title or status – The only relief sought was for cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated 15.06.2006 – s. 331 of the Act does not deprive a party of his right to approach competent court of law for getting a document cancelled, especially when, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud – There is no bar u/s.331 of the Act for the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court and the suit filed by it was maintainable.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. In the instant case, the plaintiff has pleaded that it had purchased the disputed property under five sale deeds all dated 17.10.1998 from the first defendant. The suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.06.2006 on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff had not sought any relief with respect to its own right and title as a tenure holder or declaration of its title or status. As stated above, the only relief sought in the suit filed was for cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated 15.06.2006. This Court is of the view that Section
331 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not deprive a party of his right to approach competent court of law for getting a document cancelled, especially when, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. Revenue Court does not have jurisdiction of granting relief of cancellation of a deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. [Para 7] [872-B-D]
2. In the instant case, since the plaintiff claims title under sale deeds of 1998 executed by the first defendant, it need not be forced to seek a declaration of its title. Therefore, the plaintiff had filed a suit for cancellation of the subsequent sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. Hence, there is no bar under Section 331 of the Act for the plaintiff to approach the civil court and the suit filed by it was maintainable. [Para 10] [873-D-E]
Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 207 – relied on.
Ram Padarath & Ors. v. Second ADDL D.J., Sultanpur & Ors. (1989) RD 21 (All)(FB) – approved.
Shri Ram & Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge & Ors. (2001)
3 SCC 24 : [2001] 1 SCR 984 – referred to.
Kamla Prasad & Ors. v. Kishna Kant Pathak & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 213 : [2007] 2 SCR 395 – inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.