# Jagjeet Kaur v. Charan Singh and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 844
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-21
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24748 of 2013
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagjeet-kaur-v-charan-singh-and-ors-42623
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Jurisdictionsuit for cancellation of will deed filed before
civil court-according to plaint allegation-the
petitioner
are
continuing
in
peaceful
possession and their name recorded for last
18 yrs-unless declaration about title not
claimed before revenue court-civil court has
no
jurisdiction-petition
allowed-plaintiff
either to file suit under 229-B before trail
court
pray
for
return
of
palint
for
presentation before Revenue court.

Held: Para-7
If the plaintiffs had been recorded tenure
holders or the recording of the name of the
defendant petitioner had been promptly
objected to by the plaintiffs only then they
could maintain the suit before the civil court.
The relief claimed is purely of declaration.

## Text

844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
would be a redundant exercise. An
employee cannot be put under suspension
if he is already suspended. However, if
the previous suspension was non existent,
then the District Inspector of Schools
would have to take notice of the second
suspension as well in view of the ratio of
the division bench. The District Inspector
of Schools was equally bound to consider
the previous suspension matter in the light
of the judgment dated 1.8.2012 and his
powers as explained in the full bench
judgment of Chandra Bhushan Mishra
Vs.
District
Inspector
of
Schools
reported in 1995(1) ESC 552.

20. In this context, it would have
been more appropriate for the District
Inspector of Schools to have considered
the impact of the second resolution passed
by the Committee of Management for
having suspended the petitioner even if it
was on the basis of fresh charges. The
petitioner should have been given the
opportunity to contest the said position as
well as he had already raised this
objection. The District Inspector of
Schools was therefore well aware of these
proceedings having been undertaken and
it cannot be accepted that the District
Inspector of Schools was not aware of the
proceedings of the second suspension
resolution.

21. In the aforesaid circumstances,
for all the aforesaid reasons, the order
impugned dated 31.3.2013 cannot be
sustained. It is hereby set aside. The
matter is remitted back to the District
Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order
in the light of the observations made
hereinabove after giving an opportunity of
hearing to all the parties concerned
preferably within a period of two months
from today. The status of the functioning
of the petitioner shall continue to be the
same as directed under the decision of this
Court dated 1st of August, 2012 till fresh
orders are passed.

22. The writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24748 of 2013

Jagjeet Kaur

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Charan Singh and Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Tripathi, Sri Varinder Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K. Ajit.

Constitution of India, Art. 226- Jurisdictionsuit for cancellation of will deed filed before
civil court-according to plaint allegation-the
petitioner
are
continuing
in
peaceful
possession and their name recorded for last
18 yrs-unless declaration about title not
claimed before revenue court-civil court has
no
jurisdiction-petition
allowed-plaintiff
either to file suit under 229-B before trail
court
pray
for
return
of
palint
for
presentation before Revenue court.

Held: Para-7
If the plaintiffs had been recorded tenure
holders or the recording of the name of the
defendant petitioner had been promptly
objected to by the plaintiffs only then they
could maintain the suit before the civil court.
The relief claimed is purely of declaration.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for both
the parties.
2 All] Jagjeet Kaur Vs. Charan Singh and Ors.
845

2. The question involved in this writ
petition is as to whether O.S. No.403 of
2009, Charan Singh and others Vs. Smt.
Jagjeet Kaur and others is maintainable
before the civil court or revenue court.
Petitioner is defendant No.1 in the suit.
Trial Court/ Additional Civil Judge (J.D.),
Court No.3, Rampur through order dated
01.10.2012 held that the question of
jurisdiction was a mixed question of fact
and law, hence issue No.6 pertaining to
the jurisdiction would be decided after the
evidence.
Against
the
said
order,
petitioner filed Civil Revision No.71 of
2012.
A.D.J.,
Court No.4,
Rampur
dismissed the revision by a detailed order
on 11.02.2013, hence this writ petition.

The order passed by the Civil Judge
is extremely sketchy.

4. Initially Sri Teja Singh was
Bhoomidhar
in
possession
of
the
agricultural land in dispute. According to
the plaint allegations, Sri Teja Singh
executed a Will of his entire properties on
05.02.1974 in favour of his nephews the
plaintiffs, who are sons of Banta Singh,
real brother of Teja Singh, who died
issueless and that even otherwise they
were legal representatives of Teja Singh
and that even prior to death of Teja Singh,
plaintiffs were owners of the properties in
dispute. In para-4 of the plaint, it was
stated that petitioner defendant had got a
forged Will deed dated 19.01.1990
executed in her favour purporting to be on
behalf of Teja Singh but he had died
much before 19.01.1990 and some other
person impersonated as Teja Singh, and
that Will was got executed with active
support of defendants No.2 & 3. In para-5
of the plaint, it was stated that plaintiffs
came to know about the Will dated
19.01.1990 on 01.07.2009 (after more
than 19 years) when they obtained copy
of khatauni, and that they had filed
application before the revenue court also
on 15.07.2009 for cancellation of the
name of petitioner defendant No.1. The
prayer sought through the plaint of the
suit is to the effect that permanent
prohibitory injunction be issued against
defendant restraining her from interfering
in the possession of the plaintiffs over the
land in dispute. Prayer for declaration has
also been made to the effect that Will
dated 19.01.1990 is forged, fabricated and
got executed after the death of Teja Singh
by someone who impersonated as Teja
Singh.

5. In the plaint, no date of death of
Teja Singh has been mentioned. Lower
revisional court mentioned that in the
entry dated 15.04.1985 in the khatauni, it
was mentioned that Teja Singh had died
and lekhpal must submit report about the
legal representatives.

6.

There
was
absolutely
no
allegation in the plaint that why after the
death of Teja Singh, the names of
plaintiffs were not entered in the revenue
record on the basis of Will dated
05.02.1974 alleged to have been executed
by Teja Singh. According to the plaint,
allegations itself since 23.03.1991 till
30.06.2009, i.e. for more than 18 years,
the name of petitioner was undisputedly
continuing in the revenue records and
only on 15.07.2009, application had been
filed for correction of the revenue entry.

7. The matter is squarely covered by
the Supreme Court authority reported in
Sri Ram and another Vs. A.D.J., AIR
2001 SC 1250. If the name of petitioner
was continuing for 19 years, then without
seeking declaration from the revenue
court, suit for cancellation of the Will
could not be filed. If the plaintiffs had
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
been recorded tenure holders or the
recording of the name of the defendant
petitioner had been promptly objected to
by the plaintiffs only then they could
maintain the suit before the civil court.
The
relief
claimed
is
purely
of
declaration. The Supreme Court in the
aforesaid authority observed as follows in
para-7:

"7. On analysis of the decisions cited
above, we are of the opinion that where a
recorded tenure holder having a prima
facie title and in possession files suit in
the civil court for cancellation of sale
deed having obtained on the ground of
fraud or impersonation cannot be directed
to file a suit for declaration in the revenue
court -- reason being that in such a case,
prima facie, the title of the recorded
tenure holder is not under cloud. He does
not require declaration of his title to the
land. The position would be different
where a person not being a recorded
tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale
deed by filing a suit in the civil court on
the ground of fraud or impersonation.
There necessarily the plaintiff is required
to seek a declaration of his title and,
therefore, he may be directed to approach
the revenue court, as the sale deed being
void has to be ignored for giving him
relief for declaration and possession."

8. Accordingly, both the impugned
orders are set aside. It is held that the suit
is not maintainable before the civil court.
Issue No.6 is decided against the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs may either file
fresh suit before the revenue court under
Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
and such others sections of the said Act,
which may be available to the plaintiffs or
they may within two months from today
apply before the trial court/ Additional
Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.3, Rampur to
return the plaint for filing before the
revenue court. If they do so, then the
plaint shall be returned to them for filing
the same before the revenue court.

9. Writ Petition is accordingly
allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE B.AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25035 of 2013

Ashok Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Sinha
Sri V.P. Mathur

Constitution of India Art. 226- cancellation
of candidature-petitioner participated in
interview
on
28.08.2012-no
objection
certificate could not be produced withing 21
days-but produced only on 13.09.2012
issued on 03.09.2012-commission being
conscious
about
delay
in
getting
no
objection-taken decision on 18.04.2013-not
to cancel the candidature on this Countadmittedly
canceling
candidature
on
12.03.2013-was prior to decision held-no
justification for cancellation of candidature.

Held: Para-9
From the facts, what this Court finds is that
either the Commission ought to have
strictly adhered to the terms and conditions
of the advertisement and not interviewed
the petitioner if no objection certificate was
not filed or once the indulgence had been
granted by the Commission and the