Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from a suit filed by M/s Nupur Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff) against Narendra Kumar Mittal and others (defendants) for cancellation of a sale deed dated 15.06.2006 and for injunction. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the disputed agricultural land from the first defendant under five sale deeds dated 17.10.1998. During proceedings for mutation, the plaintiff discovered that the first defendant had illegally sold the same property to defendants 2 to 5 through four registered sale deeds dated 15.06.2006. The plaintiff filed Original Suit No.55 of 2008 before the Civil Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, seeking cancellation of the 2006 sale deeds and injunction against interference with possession. The second defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which bars civil court jurisdiction over certain matters. The Civil Court held the suit maintainable, and the Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision petition. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeals. The core legal issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for cancellation of a sale deed on grounds of fraud when the property is agricultural land covered by the Act. The appellant argued that Section 331 bars the suit, while the respondent contended that the bar does not apply as the suit sought only cancellation and injunction, not declaration of title. The Supreme Court, relying on Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad, Ram Padarath v. Second ADDL D.J., and Shri Ram v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge, held that exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be strictly construed. Since the plaintiff was a recorded tenure holder with prima facie title under the 1998 sale deeds and did not seek declaration of title, the suit for cancellation of the void document on fraud grounds was maintainable in civil court. The Revenue Court lacks jurisdiction to cancel a deed for fraud. The Court distinguished Kamla Prasad v. Kishna Kant Pathak, where the plaintiff was not a recorded tenure holder. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Exclusion of Jurisdiction - Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - The statutory provisions ousting jurisdiction of civil court must be strictly construed. A suit for cancellation of a sale deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation is maintainable in civil court when the plaintiff is a recorded tenure holder with prima facie title and does not seek declaration of title. Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to grant cancellation of a deed on fraud ground. (Paras 6-10) B) Land Law - Cancellation of Sale Deed - Maintainability - Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - A recorded tenure holder in possession, having purchased property under prior sale deeds, can file a suit in civil court for cancellation of subsequent sale deed obtained by fraud. The bar under Section 331 does not apply as the plaintiff's title is not under cloud and no declaration of title is required. (Paras 7-10) C) Precedent - Distinction - Suit for Cancellation vs. Declaration - Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ram Padarath v. Second ADDL D.J. held that a suit for cancellation of a void document lies in civil court unless a declaration of right or status of a tenure holder is necessarily needed. This was approved by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for cancellation of a sale deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, filed by a recorded tenure holder in possession, is maintainable in civil court despite the bar under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950?
Final Decision
Both appeals dismissed. The suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable in civil court. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be strictly construed
- Suit for cancellation of void document lies in civil court
- Revenue Court lacks jurisdiction to cancel deed on fraud ground
- Recorded tenure holder with prima facie title need not seek declaration in Revenue Court
