sri krishna

Jurisdiction-Jurisdiction of Civil Court vis-a-vis Revenue Court-Suit for declaration of sale deeds as null and void-In respect of agricultural as well abadi lands-Before Civil Court-Right, title and interest of the co-sharers of the vendor and entries of names in Revenue Record required to be decided-Trial and Appellate Courts holding that Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the case only to the extent of Abadi land-In Writ Petition, High Court held the suit maintainable before Civil Court-On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, in respect of agricultural land Revenue Court alone had jurisdiction to decide the case and not the civil court-U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950-s. 299B. Respondent No. 1 – Plaintiff filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale deeds executed by him in favour of the contesting respondents and appellant-defendant on the ground that the same were illegal and null and void as they were not executed with his free will and on his own accord but under intoxication; that he being co-sharer of the property with respondent Nos. 10 to 12 (though their names not entered in Revenue Records), he alone had no right, title or interest to sell the property. Defendants questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Trial Court held that suit was cognizable by the Civil Court so far as abadi land was concerned and in respect of agricultural land jurisdiction vested with the Revenue Court under Section 299B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Appellate Court confirmed the order of the trial court. Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff filed a Writ Petition which was allowed by High Court holding that the suit was maintainable before Civil Court. Hence the present appeal. =Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the light of the facts of the case, the Courts below were wholly right in reaching the conclusion that such a suit could be entertained only by a Revenue Court and Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The High Court by reversing those orders had committed an error of law and of jurisdiction which deserves interference by this Court. [Para 16] 2. So far as abadi land is concerned, the trial Court held that Civil Court had jurisdiction and the said decision has become final. But as far as agricultural land is concerned, the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court were right in coming to the conclusion that only Revenue Court could have entertained the suit on two grounds. Firstly, the case of the plaintiff himself in the plaint was that he was not the sole owner of the property and defendant Nos. 10 to 12 who were proforma defendants, had also right, title and interest therein. He had also stated in the plaint that though in the Revenue Record, only his name had appeared but defendant Nos. 10 to 12 have also right in the property. Both the Courts below were right in holding that such a question can be decided by a Revenue Court in a suit instituted under Section 229-B of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. [Para 12] 3. Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that legality or otherwise of insertion of names of purchasers in Record of Rights and deletion of name of the plaintiff from such record can only be decided by Revenue Court since the names of the purchasers had already been entered into. Only Revenue Court can record a finding whether such an action was in accordance with law or not and it cannot be decided by a Civil Court. [Para 13] Shri Ram and Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge and Ors., [2001] 3 SCC 24, relied on. Shobha Dixit, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sanjay Misra for the Appellants. Manoj K. Mishra, Anju, Sheela, Amit Yadav, D.N. Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra and Rachana Srivastava for the Respondents. =2007(2 )SCR395 , 2007(4 )SCC213 , 2007(2 )SCALE607 , 2007(3 )JT282

CASENO.: Appeal (civil) 3659 of 2003 PETITIONER: KAMLA PRASAD & ORS RESPONDENT: SRI KRISHNA KANT PATHAK & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/2007 BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T C.K. THAKKER, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant-original defendant Nos. 1 to 6 against an … Continue reading →