# Ram Bahadur And 6 Others v. Hajirunnisha And 7 Others

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 561
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-30
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 191 of 2026
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-bahadur-and-6-others-v-hajirunnisha-and-7-others-54076
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

1 All. Ram Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Hajirunnisha & Ors.
561

39. It appears that the direction of this Court in above case has not been complied with in its
letter and spirit and therefore the cases of similar nature are still before this Court in routine basis.
This creates the requirement of sending the copy of this order to all district magistrates to ensure
the order is being passed on applications filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 in
timely manner.

40. The provisions of Sections 14, 26D and 26E must be read harmoniously. The statutory
priority conferred upon secured creditors is not merely declaratory but operational, and it
necessarily presupposes timely facilitation by the authorities entrusted with implementation.

41. In view of the aforesaid statutory scheme, the limited yet important function under Section
14 cannot continue with unexplained delay. We are of the view of the considered view that the
petitioner-financial institution has made out a clear case for interference of this Court. Continued
pendency of the application defeats the purpose of the Act and warrants issuance of appropriate
directions.

42. In the light of foregoing discussions, Writ C No. 42608 of 2025, Writ C No. 42610 of
2025, Writ C No. 42622 of 2025, Writ C No. 42645 of 2025 and Writ C No. 42660 of 2025 are
allowed. Learned District Magistrate/ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to decide the
petitioner's applications filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, being Case No. 3239 of
2025, Case No. 3238 of 2025, Case No. 3236 of 2025, Case No. 3240 of 2025, and Case No. 3237
of 2025, strictly in accordance with law as discussed above, as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

43. This in our considered view Writ C No 42639 of 2025 also deserves to be allowed and is
allowed in the light of this common order and the petitioner may file an application afresh for
necessary action to ensure compliance of order already passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act,
2002 and in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of C. Bright v. District
Collector and others (supra), and the documents evidencing registration of secured asset with the
Central registry under Section 26D of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

44. Accordingly, all writ petitions allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 561
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 191 of 2026

Ram Bahadur & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Hajirunnisha & Ors. ...Respondents
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for consideration
The present petition challenged the revisional order setting aside the trial court's decision which had held that
a civil suit for cancellation of a sale deed relating to agricultural land was barred under section 331 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Headnote
Constitution of India,1950-Article 227- Code of Civil Procedure,1908-Section 9-U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act,1950-Section 331-Suit for cancellation of sale deed-Agricultural
land-Maintainability-Plaintiffs claiming to be recorded tenure holders on the basis of a registered
will and mutation entries instituted a suit for cancellation of a sale deed allegedly executed by
their predecessor-in-interest, alleging fraud, forgery and absence of consideration, along with
consequential relief of injunction-Trial court held suit barred under section 331 of the U.P.ZA &
LR Act-Revisional court set aside that order-Jurisdiction must be decided on the basis of the
plaint allegations, not the defence-A suit for cancellation is not included in Schedule II of Section
331-Revenue courts have no power to cancel a sale deed-Therefore, Civil court jurisdiction is not
barred-The suit is maintainable-Petition dismissed.(Para 22 ,23) (E-6)
Held
The court ruled that where a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation simpliciter and his title is not under
cloud requiring declaration; Civil court jurisdiction is neither expressly nor impliedly barred. Hence, suit
maintainable before civil court.

Case law Cited
Kamla Prasad and Others Vs. Krishna Kant Pathak and others (2007) AIR SCW 1403 , Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra
Pilania (2019) 3 SCC 692, Shri Ram Vs. Ist ADJ (2001) 3 SCC 24, Sanwarmal Kejriwal Vs. Vishwa Coop.
Housing Society Ltd.(1990) 2 SCC 288, Ram Padarath Vs. Second Addl. District Judge (1988) SCC OnLine All
685= 1989 RD 21, Bismillah Vs. Janeshwar Prasad (1990) 1 SCC 207, Gorak Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain Singh
(1973) 2 SCC 535, Narendra Kumar Mittal Vs. Nupur Housing Development (P) Ltd., Pancham Vs. Ram Gen
(2009) SCC OnLine All 1830=(2009) 108 RD 737-referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,1950.

List of Keywords
Cancellation of Sale deed, Agricultural land, Civil court jurisdiction, Revenue court, Mutation, Recorded Tenure
holder, Forged sale deed, Supervisory jurisdiction, Void document, Section 331 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

Case Arising from
CIVIL JURISDICTION:MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No.-191 OF 2026
Ram Bahadur And 6 Others Vs. Hajirunnisha And 7 Others
From the Judgment and order dated 30.01.2026 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):
Vimal Kishore Verma, Harsh Verma
Adv. for Respondent(s):

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vimal Kishore Verma Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the records.
1 All. Ram Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Hajirunnisha & Ors.
563

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the
petitioners have assailed the validity of a judgment and order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Lakhimpur Kheri in Civil Revision No.19 of 2024:
Hazirulnisha and others Vs. Ram Bahadur and others, whereby the revision filed by the opposite
parties against an order dated 31.05.2024, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Outlying
Court, Nighasan Lakhimpur Kheri in Regular Suit No.482 of 2014 has been allowed and the order
dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge deciding preliminary issue no.5 holding that the
civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed in respect of an
agricultural land, has been set aside.

3. The plaintiffs / opposite parties filed Regular Suit No.482 of 2014 for cancellation of sale
deed and perpetual injunction pleading that they are the recorded tenure holders of the land bearing
Gata No.916, measuring 0.214 hectare situated in Village Suthna Barsola, Pargana Khairigadh,
Tehsil Nighasan, District Kheri. The previous owner of the land in question Late Abdul Bari, who
was father in law of the plaintiff no.1 and father of the plaintiff nos.2, 3 and 4, had executed a
registered will in favour of the plaintiffs and their names were mutated in the revenue records by
means of an order dated 18.07.2011 passed by the Tehsildar Nighasan. On 20.01.2014 the
defendants tried to take possession of the property in dispute claiming that Late Abdul Bari had
executed a registered sale deed dated 04.07.1988 in favour of Ram Kishun, father of the defendant
nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs sought cancellation of the sale deed stating that the sale deed is forged, it
has not been executed by Late Abdul Bari, it does not make a mention of plot number and it was
executed on 04.07.1988 during pendency of consolidation proceedings, no mutation was effected
during the consolidation proceedings and, therefore, the defendants cannot get their names mutated
now. It was further stated that no consideration was paid for execution of the sale deed.

4. A written statement has been filed inter alia pleading that the names of the defendants have
been mutated on the basis of the sale deed in question as co-tenure holder of the land in question by
means of an order dated 04.06.2014 passed by Tehsildar Nighasan and the suit is barred by the
provisions of Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred
to as "the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act).

5. The learned trial court framed issues and issue no.5 was whether the suit is barred by
Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.

6. The learned trial court held that the plaintiffs are not the recorded tenure holders of the
disputed agricultural land. The dispute involves declaration of bhumidhari rights of the plaintiffs.
Relief of declaration of the ownership of the agricultural land has not been sought in the plaint
specifically but in essence the claim of the plaintiffs was based on his ownership on the basis of
will while the plea of the defendants was that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property and the
property belongs to the defendants on the strength of a registered sale deed. Adjudication of title of
land is the main question involved in the suit. As the main question for adjudication relates to the
declaration of the rights or title of the agricultural land, a suit will lie in revenue court and not in a
civil court.
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. The plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid order by filing Civil Revision No.19 of 2024, which
has been allowed by means of the impugned order dated 14.11.2025.

8. The learned revisional court held that the names of the plaintiffs were mutated in the
revenue records under the orders of Tehsildar, Nighasan. The plaintiffs have filed extracts of
khatauni for the year 1416 to 1421, wherein their names are recorded on the strength of a registered
will. The defendants have also filed extracts of khatauni for the year 1416 to 1421 as per which the
names of the defendants have been mutated on the basis of a sale deed. Thus, it is claimed that the
plaintiffs name was recorded on the basis of a registered will and the defendants' names have been
recorded on the basis of a sale deed. In case the plaintiffs succeed and the sale deed in question is
canceled, the plaintiffs would get the land on the basis of the registered will and in case the suit is
dismissed, the land in question would continue to be recorded in the revenue records in the name of
the defendants. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial court that the suit is barred by Section 331 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, is liable to be set aside.

9. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that the names of the opposite parties are not recorded in the revenue records and,
therefore, the defendants are necessarily required to seek a declaration of their title from the
revenue court and the suit for cancellation of sale deed is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Kamla Prasad and others Vs. Krishna Kant Pathak and others:
(2007) AIR SCW 1403 and Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania: (2019) 3 SCC 692. In both these
cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the decision in the case of Shri Ram v. Ist ADJ:
(2001) 3 SCC 24, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"7. ... 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."

11. In Sanwarmal Kejriwal v. Vishwa Coop. Housing Society Ltd.: (1990) 2 SCC 288, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"24. But the jurisdiction of the court in which the action is originated must be
determined on the averments in the plaint or claim application and not on the defence taken by
the adversary party. For example, if the plaintiff goes to court alleging that the defendant is a
trespasser, the ordinary court will have jurisdiction and its jurisdiction will not be taken away
merely because the defendant pleads tenancy. If, however, the defendant succeeds in proving that
1 All. Ram Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Hajirunnisha & Ors.
565
he is a tenant in respect of premises, possession whereof is sought, the court trying the case would
dismiss the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove the jurisdictional fact that the
defendant was a trespasser...."

(Emphasis added)

12. The plaintiffs / opposite parties have pleaded in the plaint that they are the recorded tenure
holders and they have prayed for a decree of cancellation of sale deed executed by Late Abdul Bari
on 04.07.1988 and registered on 27.01.1989, and they have sought a decree of perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants / petitioners from interfering in their possession. The plaintiffs have not
sought a decree of declaration of their title. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff is
the recorded tenure holder. The defendants / petitioners have pleaded in their written statement that
now the plaintiffs are not recorded tenure holders and the defendants have been recorded as the
tenure holders. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanwarmal Kejriwal v.
Vishwa Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (supra), the jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of the
averments made in the plaint and not on the defence taken by the defendants.

13. Moreover, the plaintiffs have not sought a relief of declaration of their title. They have
sought a decree of cancellation of sale deed.

14. Sub-sections (1) and (1-A) of Section 331 (1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act
provide as follows: -

"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 143 in respect of any
holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II insofar 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
suit, application or, proceeding, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained
by any appellate or 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 a consequent failure of justice."
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Suit for cancellation of sale deed is not mentioned in Schedule II referred to in Section 331
(1) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Therefore, no Revenue Court has been conferred with the
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a suit for cancellation of a sale deed.

16. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that: -

"9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.-The Courts shall (subject to the provisions
herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their
cognisance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Explanation [I].?A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit
of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions
as to religious rites or ceremonies.

Explanation II.?For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees
are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place."

17. Suit for cancellation of sale deeds is not barred by the provisions contained in Section 331
read with Schedule II of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and, therefore, cognizance of such a suit by the
civil court is neither expressly nor impliedly barred.

18. In Ram Padarath v. Second Addl. District Judge: 1988 SCC OnLine All 685 = 1989
RD 21, a Full Bench of this Court held that: -

"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
1 All. Ram Bahadur & Ors. Vs. Hajirunnisha & Ors.
567
consolidation authorities, but so far as it holds 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 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 tenureholder 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."

(Emphasis added)

19. In Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad: (1990) 1 SCC 207, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that: -

"7. It is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be
readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. The
provisions of a law which seek to oust the jurisdiction of civil court need to be strictly construed.
Section 331 of the Act has been the subject of series of pronouncements of the High Court as to the
circumstances and the nature of the suits in which its exclusionary effect operates. Distinction was
sought to be drawn between the class of cases where the binding effect of a deed had had to be got
rid of by an appropriate adjudication on the one hand and the class of cases in which a transaction
could be said to be void in law where what the law holds to be void, there is nothing to cancel or
set aside on the other. In the former case, it was held, a suit was cognisable by the civil court while
in the latter, it was not, it being open to the statutory authority to take note of the legal incidents of
what was non est.

* * *

9. It is true that the question of jurisdiction depends upon the allegations in the plaint
and not the merits or the result of the suit. However, in order to determine the precise nature of
the action, the pleadings should be taken as a whole. If as, indeed, is done by the High Court the
expression 'void' occurring in the plaint as descriptive of the legal status of the sales is made the
constant and determinate and what is implicit in the need for cancellation as the variable and as
inappropriate to a plea of nullity, equally, converse could be the position. The real point is not the
stray or loose expressions which abound in inartistically drafted plaints, but the real substance of
the case gathered by construing pleadings as a whole. It is said "Parties do not have the farsight of
prophets and their lawyers the draftsmanship of a Chalmers".

10. Indeed in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 535] this Court,
dealing with the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of the Holdings Act, 1954 where the
provision excluding the civil court's jurisdiction is even wider, has had occasion to observe: (SCR
p.342 : SCC p.538, para 5)
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

'....but, where there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by
setting it aside or its cancellation, it could be urged that the consolidation authorities have no
power to cancel the deed, and, therefore, it must be held to be binding on them so long as it is not
cancelled by a court having the power to cancel it...."

(Emphasis added)

20. In Narendra Kumar Mittal v. Nupur Housing Development (P) Ltd.: (2020) 20 SCC
158, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval of the law laid down in Ram Padarath
(Supra) and further held that: -

"6. 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 15-6-2006 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. As stated above, the only relief sought in the suit filed was for
cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated 15-6-2006. We are of the view that Section 331 of the
Act does not deprive a party of his right to approach the competent court of law for getting a
document cancelled, especially when, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure-holder is not
under cloud. The Revenue Court does not have jurisdiction of granting relief of cancellation of a
deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.

* * *

9. 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."

21. In Pancham v. Ram Gen: 2009 SCC OnLine All 1830 = (2009) 108 RD 737, a
coordinate bench of this Court held that: -

"19. ...The suit question was plain and simple suit for cancellation of sale deed in term of
Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and on the strength of said sale deed, the right of plaintiff
was to be adversely effected. Revenue Court is not at all Competent to give relief of cancellation of
sale deed. Jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted if the relief can be granted by the special court,
conferred with the jurisdiction to grant relief. Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act ousts jurisdiction
of the other courts, and therein emphasis is on words "cause of action" and any relief which can be
accorded by Revenue Court. A suit for cancellation of sale deed is not such a suit application or
proceeding as mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule II nor is it a suit application or proceeding
based on a cause of action in respect of which relief can be obtained by means of any such suit or
application from a Revenue Court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II of the Act...."

22. In the present case, the plaintiffs-opposite parties have filed the suit for cancellation of sale
deed and perpetual injunction pleading that they are the recorded tenure holders of the land in
1 All. Maan Singh Vs. L.I.C., Agra
569
dispute. The land was previously owned by Late Abdul Bari, who was the father of the plaintiff
nos.2, 3 and 4 and father-in-law of the plaintiff no.1. He had executed a registered will in favour of
the plaintiffs and their names were mutated in the revenue records by means of an order dated
18.07.2011 passed by the Tehsildar Nighasan. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants tried to
take possession of the property in dispute on 20.01.2014 claiming that Late Abdul Bari had
executed a registered sale deed dated 04.07.1988 in favour of Ram Kishun, father of the defendant
nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs sought cancellation of the sale deed stating that the sale deed is forged, it
has not been executed by Late Abdul Bari, it does not make a mention of plot number and it was
executed on 04.07.1988 during pendency of consolidation proceedings, no mutation was effected
during the consolidation proceedings and, therefore, the defendants cannot get their names mutated
now. It was further stated that no consideration was paid for execution of the sale deed. The
defendants have pleaded in the written statement that the names of the defendants have been
mutated on the basis of the sale deed in question as co-tenure holder of the land in question by
means of an order dated 04.06.2014 passed by Tehsildar Nighasan. It is evident that initially the
land in question was owned by the plaintiffs' predecessor in interest and after his death, the
plaintiffs' names had been recorded in the revenue records. The plaintiffs' claim is solely for
cancellation of the sale deed allegedly executed by their predecessor-in-interest in favour of the
defendants and for a consequential injunction. In case the sale deed is canceled, the plaintiffs would
not need a separate relief of declaration as the obvious consequence of cancellation of the sale deed
would be restoration of the plaintiffs' names recorded in the revenue records. The revenue Courts
have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for cancellation of a sale deed. Therefore, there is no bar
against the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for entertaining the suit for cancellation of sale deed filed
by the plaintiffs / opposite parties.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.5,
Lakhimpur Kheri in Civil Revision No.19 of 2024: Hazirulnisha and others Vs. Ram Bahadur and
others. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 569
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 202 of 2026

Maan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
L.I.C., Agra ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration