# Jai Prakash Singh v. Bachchu Lal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1395
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-09
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 3553 of 2002
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-prakash-singh-v-bachchu-lal-ors-44592
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 9
and Order VII rule 1- U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act- Section
331- Specific Relief Act - Section 31 - suit
for cancellation of sale deed- by the nonexecutants of sale deed-seeking declaration of
right/title/interest in the agricultural propertyto be filed before Revenue Court-as it involves
declaration of khatedari rights.

Held: - that jurisdiction to declare khatedari
rights exclusively vests with the Revenue Court
and only after declaration of rights by the
Revenue Court the suit would be maintainable
before the Civil Court. "Where the executant of
a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek
cancellation of the deed. But if a nonexecutant seeks annulment of a deed, he has
to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid,
or nonest, or illegal or that it is not binding on
him." The executant of the deed was in
possession of the property in suit (agricultural
land)- the main relief sought in the suit is for
cancellation of sale deed by the nonexecutants of sale deed and the persons, who
at the time of execution of sale deed were not
recorded tenure holder.

Writ Petition dismissed (E-8)

List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,852 of 95,714. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39852 for what follows._

2 All. Jai Prakash Singh Vs Bachchu Lal & Ors.
1395

(b) Reasonable apprehension of
tampering
with
the
witness
or
apprehension
of
threat
to
the
complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of
the court in support of the charge. (See
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan
Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001)
6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] .)"

50. Both the judgments cited by Sri
Misra are in respect of grant of regular
bail and not the anticipatory bail.

51. It is well settled that power to
grant anticipatory bail is an extra ordinary
power and it should be exercised
sparingly. The Supreme Court in two
judgments cited above i.e. Lavesh Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma
(supra) held that an absconder or
proclaimed
offender
should
not
be
granted anticipatory bail. In the present
case, respondent no.3 has been able to
avoid arrest since the date of the F.I.R.
and despite having obtained non-bailable
warrants against him on 10.1.2019 and
issuance of the proclamation under
Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. he was not arrested.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow
wrote letters to the highest police
authorities for instructions and direction
to the Investigating Officer to complete
the investigation and effect the arrest of
the accused, but despite the aforesaid
direction, the accused was not arrested.
The role of the Investigating Officer and
his complicity in not arresting the accused
is not required to be commented upon,
which is evident from his conduct.
Further, the Sessions Court has not
considered
these
aspects
regarding
issuance of the non-bailable warrants and
the process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C.
and without taking into consideration, it
has granted the anticipatory bail in the
manner which is not in consonance with
the law laid down by the Supreme Court
in several judgements which have been
referred to and relevant paragraphs have
been extracted herein-above.

52. Thus, considering all these
aspects of the matter, the impugned order
dated 9.8.2019 is unsustainable and,
therefore, set aside.

53. However, it has been informed
at the Bar that charge sheet has been filed
against the accused.

54. In view of the subsequent
development of filing the charge sheet, it
would be open to respondent no.3 to
surrender before the trial court and apply
for regular bail.

55. Subject to above observation and
direction, the application is allowed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1395

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Misc. Single No. 3553 of 2002

Jai Prakash Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Bachchu Lal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.R. Acharya, Sri Rakesh Pratap Singh
1396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.S. Nigam, Sri Abhisht Saran, Sri Alok
Mehrotra, Sri Anurag Vikram, Sri Govind
Saran Nigam, Sri Rahul Kumar Kashyap

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 9
and Order VII rule 1- U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act- Section
331- Specific Relief Act - Section 31 - suit
for cancellation of sale deed- by the nonexecutants of sale deed-seeking declaration of
right/title/interest in the agricultural propertyto be filed before Revenue Court-as it involves
declaration of khatedari rights.

Held: - that jurisdiction to declare khatedari
rights exclusively vests with the Revenue Court
and only after declaration of rights by the
Revenue Court the suit would be maintainable
before the Civil Court. "Where the executant of
a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek
cancellation of the deed. But if a nonexecutant seeks annulment of a deed, he has
to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid,
or nonest, or illegal or that it is not binding on
him." The executant of the deed was in
possession of the property in suit (agricultural
land)- the main relief sought in the suit is for
cancellation of sale deed by the nonexecutants of sale deed and the persons, who
at the time of execution of sale deed were not
recorded tenure holder.

Writ Petition dismissed (E-8)

List of Cases Cited: -
1. Dr. Ajodhya Prasad v. Gangotri Prarsad
reported in 1980 SCC OnLine All 551: 1981 All
LJ 647: 1981 AWC 469

2. Chandrika Misir v. Bhaiya Lal (1973 RD 365)

3. Ramdhari v. Jodhan (AIR 1973 All 81)

4. Ram Padarath and others v. 2nd Addl. D.J
1988 SCC OnLine All 685: (1989) 1 AWC 290
(FB): 1989 RD 21 (FB)

5. Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shanker, 1968 AWR
731 (FB)

6. Ram Roop v. Smt. Budhiya, 1979 RD 212
7. Purshottam v. Narottam, 1970 AWR 312

8. Indra Deo v. Smt. Ram Piari, 1982 (8) ALR 517

9. Indrapal and others v. Jagannath and
others 1992 SCC OnLine All 1092: 1993 All LJ
235: (1992) 2 AWC 1118: 1992 RD 231

10. Deokinandan and others v. Surajpal and
others 1996 (27) ALR 71:1995 Supp (4) SCC
671: (1995) 6 Scale 213

11. Smt. Lakhpata and others v. IInd
Additional District Judge and others (1998) 4
AWC 969

12. Shri Ram and another v. Ist Addl. District
Judge and others (2001) 3 SCC 24

13. Smt. Kalindi and another v. IIIrd Additional
District Judge and others 2001 SCC OnLine All 316:
(2001) 45 ALR 265: (2001) 3 AWC 1978: 2001 All
LJ 2054: 2001 AIHC 4964: (2001) 92 RD 546

14. Jai Singh v. IInd Addl. District Judge and
others 2001 SCC OnLine All 607: (2001) 45
ALR 579: (2001) 4 AWC 2826: 2001 All LJ
2621: (2002) 1 ALT (DNC 2.2) 2: (2001) 92
RD 817: (2001) 4 CCC 322

15. Kishori Prasad v. IIIrd Addl. District Judge
and others 2002 SCC OnLine All 937: AIR 2003
All 58: (2002) 5 AWC 4269: 2003 All LJ 393:
(2003) 94 RD 36

16. Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub All
Mian, AIR 1949 PC 78

17. Kamla Prasad v. Krishna Kant Pathak
(2007) 4 SCC 213

18. Shri Ram v. Ist ADJ [(2001) 3 SCC 24]

19. Indraj (dead) @ Talewar and others v.
Smt. Bharpai (dead) and others 2015 SCC
OnLine All 8827: (2015) 113 ALR 904: (2016)
157 AIC 942: (2016) 130 RD 542

20. Chandrika v. Shivnath and others, reported
as 2016 (132) R.D. 247

21. Kundan Singh v. Additional District Judge
and others, 2009 RD 59
2 All. Jai Prakash Singh Vs Bachchu Lal & Ors.
1397
22. Church of North India v. Lavajibhai
Ratanjibhai, MANU/SC/2531/2005: (2005) 10
SCC 760

23.
Suraj
Bhan
v.
Financial
Commr.,
MANU/SC/7303/2007: (2007) 6 SCC 186

24. Banshi Dhar v. Sheela Devi and others in
S.A. No. 279 of 2019, 2016 (132) R.D.
3:(2016) 3 AWC 3192: (2017) 4 ALJ 177

25. Azhar Hasan & others vs. District Judge,
Saharanpur & others, 1998 (34) A. L.R. 152
(SC)

26. Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania, (2019) 3
SCC 692: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 393: 2019 SCC
OnLine SC 98

27. Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir
Singh (2010) 12 SCC 112

28. J. Vasanthi Vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal,
reported in (2017) 11 SCC 852

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.P. Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhisht
Saran along with Sri Rahul Kumar
Kashyap, learned counsel for the opposite
parties.

2. The petitioner-Jai Prakash Singh,
now deceased and represented through
legal heirs, being aggrieved by the order
dated 05.03.2002, passed by District
Judge, Unnao, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.
21 of 2001 and the order dated
15.03.2001, passed by Civil Judge (Junior
Division), North, Unnao, in Civil Suit No.
176 of 1988 (Nirvikar Singh and others
Vs. Smt. Ram Rani and others), has
approached this Court by means of
present writ petition.

3. In the Civil Suit No. 176 of 1988,
the issue no. 1 related to the jurisdiction
was framed. The issue no. 1, as appears
from the order dated 15.03.2001, is
reproduced as under:-

ÞD;k bl U;k;ky; dks Jo.kkf/kdkj
izkIr ugha gS tSlk fd izfroknh la0 1 o 2 us izfrokn
i= dh /kkjk&23 esa dgk gSAß

4. Vide order dated 15.03.2001, the
issue no. 1 was decided by the Civil Judge
(Junior Division), North, Unnao, against
the plaintiffs including Jai Prakash Singh
(now deceased). The operative portion of
the order dated 15.03.2001 is quoted
below.

Þokn fcUnq la0 1 ldkjkRed fu.khZr
fd;k tkrk gS oknh dk okn vkns'k 7 fu;e 1
nh0v0l0 ds varxZr l{ke U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;s
tkus gsrq okil fd;k tkrk gSAß

5. Aggrieved by the order dated
15.03.2001, the petitioner-Jai Prakash Singh
(now deceased) filed the Misc. Civil Appeal
No. 21 of 2001, the same was dismissed by
the District Judge, Unnao, by the order dated
05.03.2002. The operative portion of the order
dated 05.03.2002 is quoted below.

6. Challenging the aforesaid orders,
the present writ petition has been filed.

7. The issue in this case relates to
jurisdiction of Civil Court and Revenue Court.
The question, which can be formulated is to
the effect that "In which Court, "Civil or
Revenue", the suit would lie, if the prayer in
the suit is for cancellation of sale deed of
agricultural property." In another form, the
question before this Court for consideration in
this case is that "Under what circumstances,
the suit for cancellation of "Sale Deed" of
agricultural property would lie before the
Civil Court or Revenue Court."

8. Before coming to the facts of the
case, this court feels it appropriate to take
1398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
note of the judgments of this Court as
well as of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the
aforesaid issue.

9. In the case of Dr. Ajodhya Prasad
v. Gangotri Prarsad reported in 1980
SCC OnLine All 551 : 1981 All LJ 647 :
1981 AWC 469, this Court observed as
under:-

"5. It makes clear that for
purposes of cognizance of suit in the
revenue court it is the cause of action and
not the relief that is relevant. In
Ramdhari's case (AIR 1973 All 81)
(supra)
learned
single
Judge
had
obviously overlooked the Explanation in
Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act. As the
cause of action in the present case was
the interference or threatened invasion to
the rights of the plaintiff over an
agricultural holding, the relief could be
claimed against that cause of action in the
revenue court and the jurisdiction of the
civil court was barred?

11. In view of the Explanation to
Section 331 even, if the relief for
injunction was included in the plaint the
suit would be cognizable by the revenue
court because the revenue court could
give an effective relief by way of
declaration
and,
if
necessary,
by
possession over the land in suit. In
Chandrika Misir v. Bhaiya Lal (1973 RD
365) the suit had been filed for the relief
of permanent injunction and in the
alternative for possession. The suit was
instituted in the civil court and decree
was passed. Considering the effect of
Sections 209 and 331 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, the Supreme Court held that the civil
court had no jurisdiction and the suit was
liable to be dismissed. We, accordingly,
hold that the case decided by the learned
single Judge in Ramdhari v. Jodhan (AIR
1973 All 81) does not lay down the
correct law."

10. In the case of Ram Padarath
and others v. 2nd Addl. D.J, and
othersreported in 1988 SCC OnLine All
685 : (1989) 1 AWC 290 (FB) : 1989 RD
21 (FB), the Full Bench of this Court
observed as under:-

"7.
So
far
as
voidable
documents
like
those
obtained
by
practising
coercion,
fraud,
misrepresentation, undue influence etc.,
are concerned, their legal effect cannot be
put to an end without its cancellation. But
a void document is not required to be
cancelled necessarily. Its legal effect if
any can be put to an end to by declaring it
to be void and granting some other relief
instead of cancelling it. Once it is held to
be void it can be ignored by any court or
authority being of no legal effect or
consequence.
A
document
executed
without free consent or one which is
without consideration or the object of
which is unlawful or executed by a person
not competent to contract like a minor or
in excess of authority would be a void
document. In case it is in excess of
authority it would be void to that extent
only. There is presumption of due
registration
of
a
document
and
correctness of the facts mentioned in the
same, but the said presumption is not
conclusive and be dislodged.

8. On the finding that a
particular instrument or document was
void because of any reason, it will be of
no legal consequence and binding on any
one without even its cancellation. But
existence
of
such
a
document
or
instrument, more particularly for a
2 All. Jai Prakash Singh Vs Bachchu Lal & Ors.
1399
substantial period may cause injury to the
person whose rights are effected by it and
place his right and title over any property
in doubt and dispute and may create
complications
and
give
rise
to
unnecessary litigations. But for those who
are aware of any judgment holding a
particular document or instrument to be
void or supposed to be aware of it, others
can be misled by its existence if it does
not contain any endorsement of its
cancellation subsequent to its execution
by
any
competent
court
of
law.
Reasonable
apprehension
of
serious
injury from a void document provides a
cause of action to a person to approach
the competent court of law, that is, civil
court for its cancellation. But this
entitlement goes into background or
becomes restricted if because of certain
statutory
constraints,
restraints
and
prescription some other relief can be
claimed or is to be granted by adjudging
the document or instrument void and
thereby declaring it to be legally
ineffective and of no consequence. Such a
situation
can
arise
if
apart
from
cancellation, some other relief is claimed
which is real relief and the claim for
which provides the proximate ground or
reason for approaching the court of law
or when any other relief can be claimed
or involved in the matter cropping up
because of the evidence of void document
or instrument. There can be other
situation also, all of which Gan be
created by statutory provisions as the
jurisdiction of civil court can be ousted
only by some specific provisions of law or
by necessary implication sprouting out of
statutory provisions. Such a situation
arises when more than one reliefs are
claimed in any action pertaining to
agricultural land. If the relief claimed or
the real and the main relief is one which
is mentioned in Schedule II to U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, the same can be granted by the
revenue court only and the jurisdiction of
civil court to grant such a relief or reliefs
is ousted by Section 331 of the said Act.

9. The law relating to right, title
and interest over the agricultural land is
contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, hereinafter known
as the ''Act', which is a complete Code by
itself and is wider than the earlier Act,
i.e., U.P. Tenancy Act which too was
replaced by it. The said Act more
particularly the Schedule to it enumerates
the suits etc., the cognizance of which is
to be taken of by the revenue court
specified therein. The said Act being
special Act, its provisions would prevail
over the general law. The jurisdiction of
Civil Court is ousted if the relief can be
granted by the special court conferred
with jurisdiction to grant such reliefs. In
Section 331 of the Act which specifically
ousts the jurisdiction of other courts in
respect of all suits, applications etc.,
enumerated in Schedule II the main
emphasis is on the words ''cause of action
and any relief'. The said section reads as
under:

"Section 331. Cognizance of
suits etc., under this Act-- (1) Except as
provided by or under this Act no court
other than a court mentioned in column 4
of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 (V of 1908), take cognizance
of any suit, application or proceedings
mentioned in column 3 thereof, or of a
suit, application or proceedings based on
a cause of action in respect of which any
relief could be obtained by means of any
such suit or application.

Provided
that
where
a
declaration has been made under Section
1400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
143 in respect of any holding or part
thereof; the provisions of Schedule II in
so far as they relate to suits, applications,
or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall
not apply to such holding or part thereof.

Explanation-If the cause of
action is one in respect of which relief
may be granted by the revenue court, it is
immaterial that the relief asked for from
the civil court may not be identical to that
which the revenue court would have
granted.

(1-A) Notwithstanding anything
in sub-section (i) an objection that a court
mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II, or,
as the case may be, a civil court, which
had no jurisdiction with respect to the
suits,
application
or
proceedings,
exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto
shall not be entertained by any appellate
so revisional court unless the objection
was taken in the court of first instance at
the earliest possible opportunity and in all
cases where issues are settled, at or
before such settlement, and unless there
has been consequent failure of justice."

12. It is the real ''cause of
action' which determines the jurisdiction
of the court to entertain particular action
notwithstanding the language used in the
plaint or the relief claimed. The strength
on which the plaintiff comes to the court
does not depend upon the defence or
relief claimed which could determine the
forum for the entertainment of claim and
grant of relief. It is the pith and substance
which is to be seen and not the language
used which may even have been so used to
oust the jurisdiction of a particular court.

16. A revenue court may grant a
relief in present, but so far as relief for
future is concerned the revenue court may
not be in a position to grant such a relief
as the same may travel beyond the relief
which could be granted by it mentioned in
Schedule II to the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

17. It is the alleged injury or
apprehended injury or cloud on the right
and title of a person by some action on
the part of any other person, or
interference or attempt to interfere or
encroach upon the right and title of a
person over a particular property by any
positive or negative act or declaration
etc., which give a suitor came of action to
approach a court of law for relief or
reliefs against the same. The dispute as to
jurisdiction arises when more than one
reliefs are claimed in an action on the
same cause of action one of which can be
granted by a civil court. If the principal
or real relief can be granted by the
revenue court, then the ancillary relief or
the relief which flows out from the
principal relief can also be granted by the
revenue court notwithstanding that all the
reliefs can be granted by the civil court
and if things are in reverse direction then
all the reliefs can be granted by the civil
court, but if the so-called main relief is
redundant or mere surplusage then it is
the real relief involved in the matter
which may or may not have been claimed
as ancillary relief will determine the
jurisdiction of the court which is to
entertain a particular action. Even if a
plaint or application is couched in such a
language so as to oust jurisdiction of a
particular court then it is the cause of
action and relief flowing out of such
cause of action which would determine
the forum for entertaining the said action
and not the so-called relief claimed.

18. A Full Bench of this Court
in the case of Ram Awalamb v. Jata
Shanker, 1968 AWR 731 (FB) which was
constituted in view of conflict between two
Bench decisions of this Court observed
that "where in a suit, from a perusal only
2 All. Jai Prakash Singh Vs Bachchu Lal & Ors.
1401
of the relief claimed, one or more of them
are ostensibly cognizable only by civil
court and atleast one relief is cognizable
by the revenue court, further questions
which arise are whether all the reliefs are
based on the same cause of action and if
so, (a) whether the main relief asked for
on the basis of the cause of action is such
as can be granted only by a revenue court
or (b) whether any real or sub-stantial
relief, though it may not be identical with
that claimed by the plaintiff could be
granted by the revenue court. There can
be no doubt that in all cases contemplated
under (a) and (b) above, the jurisdiction
shall vest in the revenue court and not in
the civil court."

19. If more than one reliefs are
claimed by a particular person, no relief
can granted to that person unless
declaration of his tenancy rights is made
and in that situation the suit will be
cognizable by the revenue court as
declaration can be granted by the revenue
court. Similarly if a person claims relief
of injunction and in the alternative for
possession if he is found to be out of
possession and his name is not on the
record then without declaration that in
fact he is the tenant or he is in possession
of the tenancy rights no further relief can
be granted and the suit is cognizable by
the revenue court. In case the suit is for
injunction and/or possession if he is out of
possession then the suit will be cognizable
by the revenue court notwithstanding the
relief for injunction is to be granted by the
civil court. In this connection reference
may be made to the case of Chandrika
Misir v. Bhaiya Lal, 1973 RD 498. The
said case arose out of suit for injunction
and in the alternative for possession in
respect of agricultural land. It was held
that in view of Schedule II to the Act, the
relief for possession could be granted by
the revenue court only and Section 331 of
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act ousted the jurisdiction of
civil court. In the said case though no
observation in respect of relief for
injunction has been specifically made out,
but from the judgment the picture is very
clear. The finding of the subordinate
court was that the plaintiff was out of
possession on the basis of allegations
which were not true and which he failed
to establish merely because relief for
Injunction was claimed. The Civil Court
would have no Jurisdiction as the case
first involved declaration of right as
tenure-holder which could be granted by
the revenue court only and thereafter
relief could have been granted only if he
was
held
to
be
tenure-holder
by
succession.

20. The forum for action in
relation to void documents or instrument
regarding agricultural land depends on
the real cause of action with reference to
the
facts
averred.
Void
documents
necessarily do not require cancellation
like voidable documents. A simple suit for
cancellation of a document or instrument
if the same casts cloud on one's right and
title or is likely to cast cloud over it or
affects the same adversely in respect of
agricultural property, that is, ''land' poses
no difficulty provided further it does not
necessitate any declaration as to the
claimant's right and title over the land i.e.
tenancy rights under the existing law. The
difficulty arises when more than one
reliefs are involved or claimed. It may be
that one may get effective relief in
presenti without cancellation of the
document, but if a document remains
uncancelled for several years its existence
may give rise to new trouble and
litigation. The decree of a court in which
a document is declared to be void and is
1402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
avoided
is
obviously
a
decree
in
personam and the same undoubtedly
binds a party but it will not be binding to
each and every person as no note of such
a decree can be made in the SubRegistrar's register as provided in Section
31 of the Specific Relief Act. Such a
document may mislead many and may
give rise to various transactions and
litigations.

28. In Ram Roop v. Smt.
Budhiya, 1979 RD 212, the character of
the document itself was challenged and
the
suit
was
essentially
not
for
cancellation of sale-deed. The court found
that the suit involved declaration of status
of a Sirdar as well as possession over
land. The challenge to the document was
on
the
ground
of
fraud
and
misrepresentation
as
her
thumbimpressions were obtained by telling her
that it was for rationcard. The court found
that the suit essentially was not for
adjudication of sale-deed to be void, but
involved declaration of sale-deed to be
void, and involved declaration of status as
Sirdar as well as possession.

33. In Purshottam v. Narottam,
1970 AWR 312, which in fact was not a
case for void or voidable document, it was
held that if plaintiff had no grievance
against record maintained by State
Government and Gaon Sabha, suit for
permanent injunction would lie in revenue
court and any other person who disputes
plaintiff's right he shall also be impleaded
as a defendant. But if the village records
support the claim of the plaintiff, suit
would not lie under Section 229-B of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, but would lie in civil court if
plaintiff's right is disputed by a third
person.

41. In the case of void document
said to have been executed by a plaintiff
during his disability or by some one
impersonating him or said to have been
executed by his predecessor whom he
succeeds, the relief of cancellation of the
document is more appropriate relief for
clearing the deck of title and burying deep
any dispute or controversy on its basis in
presenti or which may take place in
future.
The
document
after
its
cancellation
would
bear
such
an
endorsement in Sub-Registrar's register
and would be the basis for correction of
any paper and revenue record including
record of register. Section 31 of the
Specific Relief Act itself prescribes as to
who can seek relief of cancellation. A
third person cannot file a suit for
cancellation of a void document. If in fact
no decree for cancellation was needed
and real and effective relief could be
granted by the revenue court only, the
civil court decree would even then be
valid and not void if no objection to the
same was taken before the trial court. If
such an objection was taken before the
trial court before framing of issues and
objection continued to be taken before
appellate and revisional court and there
has been failure of justice because of
change of forum then the civil court
decree could be said to be without
jurisdiction.

46. We are of the view that the
case of Indra Deo v. Smt. Ram Piari,
1982 (8) ALR 517 has been correctly
decided and the said decision requires no
consideration, while the Division Bench
case, Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri,
1981
AWC
469
is
regarding
the
jurisdiction of consolidation authorities,
but so far as it bolds that suit in respect of
void document will lie in the revenue
court it does not lay down a good law.
Suit or action for cancellation of void
document will generally lie in the civil
2 All. Jai Prakash Singh Vs Bachchu Lal & Ors.
1403
court and a party cannot be deprived of
his right getting this relief permissible
under law except when a declaration of
right or status of a tenure-holder is
necessarily needed in which event relief
for cancellation will be surplusage and
redundant. A recorded tenure-holder
having prima facie title in his favour can
hardly be directed to approach the
revenue court in respect of seeking relief
for cancellation of a void document which
made him to approach the court of law
and in such case he can also claim
ancillary relief even though the same can
be granted by the revenue court."

11. In the case of Indrapal and
others v. Jagannath and others reported
in 1992 SCC OnLine All 1092 : 1993 All
LJ 235 : (1992) 2 AWC 1118 : 1992 RD
231, this Court observed as under:-

"4. It is well established by
several decisions that if the sale-deed is
void and a declaration of right is
claimed.the suit is triable by the revenue
court, ohterwise it is triable by the civil
court vide Ram Padarath v. IInd Addl.
District Judge, 1989 AWC 290 (FB) and
Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad, 1989
ALJ 1335 (SC).

9. Thus, the essence of the
matter in deciding whether the suit is
cognizable by the civil Court or the
revenue court is whether Section 331 of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act is attracted to the facts of the
case. If in substance, the main question
involved relates to declaration of right or
title, then the suit would lie in the revenue
court and not in the civil Court."

12. In the case of Deokinandan and
others v. Surajpal and others, reported in
1996 (27) ALR 71:1995 Supp(4) SCC
671: (1995) 6 Scale 213, the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed as under:-

"3. The controversy is no longer
res integra. Admittedly, the suit lands are
governed by the provisions of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1951 [for short, 'the Act'). The
appellant had raised the objection to the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court in his
defence in the Trial Court. He pleaded
thus:

"The suit is barred under the
provisions of Section 331 of U.P.
Zamindari & Land Reforms Act. The sale
is not barred under the provisions of
Section 168-A of Z.A. Act. The plaintiffs
suit is liable to be dismissed with costs."

4. In the appellate Court also
the same point has been reiterated but
negatived.
The
second
appeal
was
dismissed by the High Court in limine.
Thus this appeal by special leave.

5. This Court in Chandrika
Misir
and
Anr.
v.
Bhaiya
Lal
MANU/SC/0328/1973:
[1974]1SCR290
had to deal with the same question. It was
held that:

"Sections 209 and 331 of U.P.
Zaminadari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1951, when read together, showed
that a suit, like the present one, had to be
filed in a Special Court created under the
Act within a period of limitation specially
prescribed under the Rules made under
the Act, and the jurisdiction of the
ordinary Civil Courts to entertain the suit
was absolutely barred.

Since the Civil Court which
entertained the suit suffered from an
inherent lack of jurisdiction because of
special provisions of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951,
the present appeal filed by the appellants
had to be dismissed."
1404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. The above ratio applies to the facts in
this case. As pointed out earlier, the lands
are covered by the provisions of the Act
and
express
objection
as
to
the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court was raised.
The appellant had purchased 0.7 acres of
land out of 2.17 acres. The abadi site
comprises one Kachha Kotha and Ghar
having boundary walls. Since the lands
are admittedly covered by the provisions
of the Act, the Civil Court inherently
lacked jurisdiction to go into the question
of title.

7. The appeal is accordingly
allowed and the suit stands dismissed in
so far as it relates to 0.7 acres of land
purchased by the appellant. No costs."

13. In the case of Smt. Lakhpata
and others v. IInd Additional District
Judge and others, reported in (1998) 4
AWC 969, this Court observed as under:-

"8.
After
considering
the
averments of the parties made in the writ
petition and in the counter-affidavit and
hearing arguments of the learned counsel
for the parties, I am of the view that the
suit filed by the petitioner with respect to
khata No. 306 measuring 10 Biswas
which also included the house, 'sahan',
'ghera' and 'saria', well and trees of the
petitioners as well cannot be thrown out
by the civil court, as the revenue court,
cannot grant the relief in respect of house
'sahan', 'ghera', 'saria', well and trees and
such a relief can only be granted by the
civil court. The fate of the case filed by
the petitioner under Section 229B of
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the revenue
court is not known. The consolidation
operations must have taken place during
all these years and the counsel for the
parties could not state as to whether in
respect of properties in question, revenue
court or the consolidation courts have
passed any order or not. This aspect of
the matter may be looked Into by the civil
court where the matter will be heard and
tried again, in view of the orders which
are being passed by this Court.

9. There is another aspect of the
matter which requires consideration. Ori
was
undoubtedly
recorded
as
tenureholder. His name was expunged
from the revenue court. The petitioners
have asserted that an imposter was set up,
who filed a compromise and on the basis
of that compromise, the name of Ori was
expunged. The petitioners, by leading
evidence on that question, can prove that
fact. That exercise can only be done by
the civil court and not by the revenue
court.

10. In view of what has been
indicated heretnabove, I am of the view
that the civil court had the jurisdiction to
try the suit. The trial court as well as the
revisional court have committed manifest
error of law in returning the plaint for
presentation
to
the
revenue
court.
Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds
and in view of the aforesaid observations,
a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned orders dated 6.10.1982 and
5.5.1984 (constained in Annexures-2 and
3 to the writ petition) passed by opposite
party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, is issued.
The trial court will register the case and
decide the same on merits in accordance
with law and the directions contained in
this order. "

14. In the case of Shri Ram and
another v. Ist Addl. District Judge and
others reported in (2001) 3 SCC 24, the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"7. On analysis of the decisions
cited above, we are of the opinion that
2 All. Jai Prakash Singh Vs Bachchu Lal & Ors.
1405
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 been obtained on the
ground of fraud or impersonation cannot
be directed to file a suit for declaration in
the Revenue Court, the 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."

15. In the case of Smt. Kalindi and
another v. IIIrd Additional District
Judge and others reported in 2001 SCC
OnLine All 316 : (2001) 45 ALR 265 :
(2001) 3 AWC 1978 : 2001 All LJ 2054 :
2001 AIHC 4964 : (2001) 92 RD 546,
this Court observed as under:-

"4. The question is what is the
main relief in the suit. In Ram Padarath v.
Second
Additional
District
Judge,
Sultanpur, [ 1989 RD 21.] the Court held
that the suit for cancellation of a saledeed or other instruments and documents
are essentially suits of civil nature and
every suit of civil nature is cognizable by
a civil court except cognizance of which is
expressly or impliedly barred. In respect
of the cancellation of the sale-deed, the
suits are entertainable only by a civil
court and no revenue court or any other
court can entertain such a suit.

Section 31 of the Specific Relief
Act reads as under:

"(1) Any person against whom a
written instrument is void or voidable,
and who has reasonable apprehension
that such instrument, if left outstanding
may cause him serious injury, may sue to
have it adjudged void or voidable, and the
court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it
and order it to be delivered up and
cancelled.

(2) If the instrument has been
registered under the Indian Registration
Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall
also send a copy of its decree to the
officer in whose office the instrument has
been so registered and such officer shall
note on the copy of the instrument
contained in his books the facts of its
cancellation."

In
respect
of
voidable
documents, it was observed as under:

"So far as voidable documents
like
those
obtained
by
practising
coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, undue
influence etc., are concerned, their legal
effect cannot be put to an end without its
cancellation. But a void document is not
required to be cancelled necessarily. Its
legal effect if any can be put to an end to
by declaring it to be void and granting
some other relief instead of cancelling it.
Once it is held to be void it can be
ignored by any court or authority being of
no legal effect or consequence. A
document executed without free consent
or one which is without consideration or
the object of which is unlawful or
executed by a person not competent to
contract like a minor or in excess of
authority would be a void document. In
case it is in excess of authority it would be
void to that extent only. There is
presumption of due registration of a
document and correctness of the facts
1406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mentioned in the same, but the said
presumption is not conclusive and be
dislodged."

8. In the present case there are
two main questions--one is whether the
gift-deed and sale-deed are voidable on
the basis of the allegations contained in
the plaint, namely, fraud in obtaining the
deeds. The documents were not duly
executed by the vendor. They did not
contain his signatures and was without
jurisdiction and the second question is
whether the plaintiff-respondent was born
prior to the enforcement of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act. If he was born prior to the
enforcement of the Act, he will have right
over the sir land in question.

9. In view of the allegations
contained in the suit for the cancellation
of the documents, the suit is maintainable
in the civil court. There is no merit in the
writ
petition.
It
is,
accordingly,
dismissed."

16. In the case of Jai Singh v. IInd
Addl. District Judge and others, reported
in 2001 SCC OnLine All 607 : (2001) 45
ALR 579 : (2001) 4 AWC 2826 : 2001 All
LJ 2621 : (2002) 1 ALT (DNC 2.2) 2 :
(2001) 92 RD 817 : (2001) 4 CCC 322,
this Court observed as under:-

"20. There is another reason for
which
the
plaintiff
should
not
be
precluded from going to the civil court to
get the deed cancelled even though, he is
not recorded in the revenue papers as in
the event of cancellation of deed, further
action about correction of the revenue
entry will be just a sheer formality which
can be said to be a follow up action and it
will be just a ministerial act to be
performed by revenue authorities. If the
plaintiff after getting declaration in his
favour by civil court visits revenue
authority and brings this fact to his notice
then the revenue authority after finding it
out that the name of the defendant came
to be recorded only on the basis of the
deed in question, which having been
cancelled, will have no option but to
restore the entry. In this view, no
adjudication by revenue authorities of any
kind will be required, if the main bone of
contention between the parties i.e. deed
goes away from the hands of the
defendants on account of its cancellation
by civil court. The decision as has been
referred in support of the argument for
abating the suit under the provisions of
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
reported in Smt. Sumitra Devi v. Addl.
District Judge [ 2000 (91) RD 45.] , to my
mind have not dealt the aspect that if
there is no specific bar in maintaining the
suit in the civil court for the relief for
which
the
plaintiff
has
come
i.e.
cancellation of the deed, then irrespective
of availability or the claim for another
relief which might be available in the
revenue court or consolidation court, why
the civil court is not competent to grant
the relief of cancellation of deed for
which the plaintiffs have come to the civil
court.