2014 (11) TMI 1206 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for cancellation of sale deed - fraud and misrepresentation - agricultural property - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to warrant interference of this Court. Revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Civil Court in suit for cancellation of sale deed based on fraud and misrepresentation.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a suit for cancellation of a sale deed dated 15.06.2006 on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, along with a request for injunction. The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court due to the disputed property being agricultural land. However, the court below held that since the suit was based on fraud and misrepresentation, it fell within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. This decision was supported by the Full Bench decision in Ram Padarath and others Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, which established that suits for cancellation of void deeds are cognizable by the Civil Court.

2. The High Court reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters by referring to previous judgments. In Writ C No. 40487 of 2008, the Court reiterated that suits for cancellation of deeds fall under the purview of the Civil Court. The Court emphasized that seeking relief for cancellation of a deed does not necessitate approaching a revenue court, as the Civil Court has the authority to adjudicate on such matters.

3. The High Court further cited the decision in Shri Ram & Anr. Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, which supported the view that exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be explicitly expressed or necessarily implied. The Court noted that where the binding effect of a deed needs to be nullified through adjudication, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case. Additionally, the Court referenced the Full Bench judgment in Ram Padarath to reinforce the validity of seeking cancellation of deeds in the Civil Court.

4. The revisionist failed to demonstrate any legal errors or irregularities in the impugned order that would justify the High Court's intervention. The counsel for the revisionist could not provide any arguments to challenge the established legal precedents supporting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in cases of cancellation of deeds based on fraud and misrepresentation. Consequently, the High Court found no merit in the revision and dismissed it accordingly.