2019 (8) TMI 119 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of suit - possession of property - cancellation of sale deed - Whether the suit filed by the first respondent-plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.06.2006 against the appellant-second defendant and second respondent-first defendant, and for injunction restraining them from interfering with its possession of the property was maintainable? HELD THAT - 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 - the only relief sought in the suit filed was for cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated 15.06.2006. We are of the view that Section 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 - Revenue Court does not have jurisdiction of granting relief of cancellation of a deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. 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. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of the suit for cancellation of a sale deed and injunction on agricultural land under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of the maintainability of a suit filed by a private limited company for cancellation of a sale deed and injunction on agricultural land under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The plaintiff had purchased properties in 1998 and later discovered that the first defendant had sold the same property to others in 2006. The second defendant challenged the suit's maintainability under Section 331 of the Act, arguing that suits related to agricultural land were barred. The High Court had dismissed the revision petition challenging the suit's maintainability, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 331 of the Act and previous legal precedents to determine the suit's maintainability. It cited the case of Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 207, emphasizing that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be strictly construed. The Court noted that the plaintiff sought relief only for cancellation of the sale deed dated 2006 on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, without claiming any right or title as a tenure holder. It held that Section 331 did not prevent a party from approaching a competent court for cancellation of a document, especially when the recorded tenure holder's title was not in question.

Additionally, the Court referred to the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Padarath & Ors. v. Second ADDL D.J., Sultanpur & Ors., (1989) RD 21 (All)(FB), which supported the view that suits for cancellation of void documents generally lie in civil courts. The Court also cited its own judgment in Shri Ram & Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 24, stating that recorded tenure holders in possession need not seek a declaration of title when filing suits for cancellation of deeds obtained through fraud or impersonation.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that since the plaintiff claimed title under sale deeds from 1998 and filed the suit for cancellation of a subsequent sale deed, there was no bar under Section 331 of the Act. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the maintainability of the suit and emphasizing that the plaintiff was not required to seek a declaration of title, as its recorded tenure holder status was not in doubt.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the judgment provided a clear precedent for the issue at hand. Another related appeal was also dismissed based on the same reasoning, with no order as to costs in both cases.