1989 (12) TMI 357 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
2. Interpretation of appellant's pleadings and the nature of relief sought.
3. Legal principles regarding the cancellation of sale deeds and possession.
4. Application of the doctrine of non est factum.
5. Precedents on Civil Court jurisdiction over void or voidable transactions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act:
The primary issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's suit for cancellation of sale deeds and possession of agricultural lands, or if such jurisdiction was barred by Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The High Court had directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, concluding that the relief sought was within the exclusive domain of the Revenue Court. The Supreme Court noted that the exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied and should be strictly construed.

2. Interpretation of Appellant's Pleadings and the Nature of Relief Sought:
The appellant claimed that the sales were fraudulent and collusive, executed without her knowledge and consent, and sought cancellation of the sale deeds, delivery of possession, and rendition of accounts. The High Court construed the pleadings as a plea of nullity, holding that the relief for cancellation was "illusory" and the main relief was possession, which fell under the Revenue Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the jurisdiction depends on the allegations in the plaint and not on the merits or result of the suit. The pleadings should be taken as a whole to determine the nature of the action.

3. Legal Principles Regarding the Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Possession:
The Court referred to previous judgments distinguishing between cases where the binding effect of a deed needed to be adjudicated and cases where a transaction was void in law. It was held that if the legal effect of a document could only be taken away by setting it aside or its cancellation, the Civil Court would have jurisdiction. The appellant's suit was seen as falling within this category, where the sales needed to be set aside before possession could be granted.

4. Application of the Doctrine of Non Est Factum:
The doctrine of non est factum was discussed, which allows a person to claim that a document they signed is not binding if they were mistaken about its nature or contents due to fraud or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court cited cases like Foster v. Mackinnon and Ningawwa v. Byrappa, highlighting that a transaction induced by fraud is voidable, but if the misrepresentation relates to the character of the document, it is void. The appellant's case was seen as one where the sales could not be ignored and needed to be set aside due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

5. Precedents on Civil Court Jurisdiction Over Void or Voidable Transactions:
The Court reviewed precedents, including the Allahabad High Court's decisions in India Dev v. Ram Pyari and Ram Padarath v. Second Addl. Dist. Judge, Sultanpur. These cases held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not barred when seeking cancellation of sale deeds, even if the transaction is void. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's case was covered by these precedents, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the trial Court's order on the preliminary issue, remitting the suit back to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law on the merits.