# Rambhool v. Sheeshpal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 812
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-01
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 450 of 2024
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rambhool-v-sheeshpal-ors-52290
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Second Appeal- Sale deed
executed by plaintiff-appellant sought to be
cancelled on the ground of fraud-sale deed
invalid for want of permission from the
Competent Authority.

B. No pleading in the plaint that the plaintiffappellant
belongs
to
Scheduled
Caste
Community- no pleading that permission under
Section 157-AA was required- No application for
additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read
with Order 42 CPC filed- caste certificate cannot
be read in the present proceedings- argument
regarding non-compliance of Section 157-AA has
no force. (Paras 5 and 6)

HELD:
As far as the first argument based upon Section
157-AA of the Act, 1950 is concerned, the Court
finds that there was no pleading in the plaint
that the plaintiff-appellant belongs to Scheduled
Caste Community. The plea of permission from
the Competent Authority was taken in paragraph
no.10 of the plaint but it was not stated that
permission, as contemplated under Section 157AA, was required and even though it was not
necessary to plead any section of the Statute,
the pleading was to the effect that the property
was given on lease by the State Government
and, therefore, in absence of permission from
the Competent Authority/ District Magistrate,
sale could not be effected and the sale deed is
void. (Para 5)

Sri Tyagi has drawn attention of this Court
towards
Annexure
no.1
to
the
affidavit
supporting stay application, which is a photostat
copy of caste certificate dated 26.03.2021
demonstrating the alleged status of the plaintiffappellant as a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste Community. Admittedly, this document did
not form part of the record of the courts below
nor has any application for additional evidence
under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 42 CPC
by which the provisions of Order 41 have been
made applicable to second appeals, been moved
before this Court. Therefore, the photostat copy
of the document filed as Annexure no.1 cannot
be read in the present proceedings. Therefore,
argument on non-compliance of Section 157-AA
has no force. (Para 6)

C. Plea of fraud- presumption of validity of
instrument-consonant
with
provisions
of
Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act,
1908-
rebuttable
presumption-no
cogent
evidence was led by plaintiff-appellant to rebut
the said presumption- Effect of acquisition
proceedings by U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad-
Sections 189 (c) and 190 (1)(d) of the UPZALR
Act, 1950-rights of tenure holder would extinct-
7 All. Rambhool Vs. Sheeshpal & Ors.
813
U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad not arrayed as
defendant- Suit would fail as per Proviso to
Order I Rule 9 to CPC- No substantial question
of law arises for consideration-Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 7, 11, 13 and 14)

HELD:
n so far as the plea of fraud is concerned, both
the courts below have dealt with oral and
documentary evidence in this regard and this
Court does not find any error or perversity in the
view taken to the effect that there was a
presumption of validity of the registered
document. This Court finds that such a view is
in consonance with the provisions of Sections
58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and
though the presumption is rebuttable, no cogent
evidence was led by the plaintiff-appellant to
rebut the said presumption. (Para 7)

A bare perusal of Sections 189 (c) and
190(1)(d) of the Act, 1950 shows that when the
land comprised in the holding of a bhumidhar
with transferable rights or a bhumidhar with
non-transferable rights has been acquired under
any law for the time being in force relating to
the acquisition of land, the rights of the tenure
holder would extinct. (Para 11)

This Court is not in a position to accept the said
submission
for
the
simple
reason
that
irrespective of execution of sale deed, whether
the plaintiff-appellant is the owner or the
defendant respondents, the rights in the
agricultural land in dispute vested absolutely in
Avas Vikas Parishad after acquisition. Extinction
of the

## Text

812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case are totally different. The Court has
already held that the writing relied upon
by the appellant though termed as "sale"
does not satisfy the parameters even of an
agreement and, therefore, the entire case
of the defendant-appellant has no basis at
all.

23. No substantial question of law
arises for consideration in this appeal and
summoning of lower court record for
further consideration is not required as
sufficient material is already appended
along with memo of appeal and the
supplementary affidavit filed today.

24. The instant second appeal has
no force and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 812
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Second Appeal No. 450 of 2024

Rambhool ...Appellant
Versus
Sheeshpal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia, Sri Rahul
Kumar Tyagi

Counsel for the Respondents:

A. Civil Law - Second Appeal- Sale deed
executed by plaintiff-appellant sought to be
cancelled on the ground of fraud-sale deed
invalid for want of permission from the
Competent Authority.

B. No pleading in the plaint that the plaintiffappellant
belongs
to
Scheduled
Caste
Community- no pleading that permission under
Section 157-AA was required- No application for
additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read
with Order 42 CPC filed- caste certificate cannot
be read in the present proceedings- argument
regarding non-compliance of Section 157-AA has
no force. (Paras 5 and 6)

HELD:
As far as the first argument based upon Section
157-AA of the Act, 1950 is concerned, the Court
finds that there was no pleading in the plaint
that the plaintiff-appellant belongs to Scheduled
Caste Community. The plea of permission from
the Competent Authority was taken in paragraph
no.10 of the plaint but it was not stated that
permission, as contemplated under Section 157AA, was required and even though it was not
necessary to plead any section of the Statute,
the pleading was to the effect that the property
was given on lease by the State Government
and, therefore, in absence of permission from
the Competent Authority/ District Magistrate,
sale could not be effected and the sale deed is
void. (Para 5)

Sri Tyagi has drawn attention of this Court
towards
Annexure
no.1
to
the
affidavit
supporting stay application, which is a photostat
copy of caste certificate dated 26.03.2021
demonstrating the alleged status of the plaintiffappellant as a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste Community. Admittedly, this document did
not form part of the record of the courts below
nor has any application for additional evidence
under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Order 42 CPC
by which the provisions of Order 41 have been
made applicable to second appeals, been moved
before this Court. Therefore, the photostat copy
of the document filed as Annexure no.1 cannot
be read in the present proceedings. Therefore,
argument on non-compliance of Section 157-AA
has no force. (Para 6)

C. Plea of fraud- presumption of validity of
instrument-consonant
with
provisions
of
Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act,
1908-
rebuttable
presumption-no
cogent
evidence was led by plaintiff-appellant to rebut
the said presumption- Effect of acquisition
proceedings by U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad-
Sections 189 (c) and 190 (1)(d) of the UPZALR
Act, 1950-rights of tenure holder would extinct-
7 All. Rambhool Vs. Sheeshpal & Ors.
813
U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad not arrayed as
defendant- Suit would fail as per Proviso to
Order I Rule 9 to CPC- No substantial question
of law arises for consideration-Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 7, 11, 13 and 14)

HELD:
n so far as the plea of fraud is concerned, both
the courts below have dealt with oral and
documentary evidence in this regard and this
Court does not find any error or perversity in the
view taken to the effect that there was a
presumption of validity of the registered
document. This Court finds that such a view is
in consonance with the provisions of Sections
58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and
though the presumption is rebuttable, no cogent
evidence was led by the plaintiff-appellant to
rebut the said presumption. (Para 7)

A bare perusal of Sections 189 (c) and
190(1)(d) of the Act, 1950 shows that when the
land comprised in the holding of a bhumidhar
with transferable rights or a bhumidhar with
non-transferable rights has been acquired under
any law for the time being in force relating to
the acquisition of land, the rights of the tenure
holder would extinct. (Para 11)

This Court is not in a position to accept the said
submission
for
the
simple
reason
that
irrespective of execution of sale deed, whether
the plaintiff-appellant is the owner or the
defendant respondents, the rights in the
agricultural land in dispute vested absolutely in
Avas Vikas Parishad after acquisition. Extinction
of the interest, either of the plaintiff-appellant or
of the defendant respondents would nullify the
entire suit proceedings on this ground alone
and, as aforesaid, U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad not
being party to the litigation though it was a
necessary party to the proceedings, the suit
would fail for all purposes. The Court may note
that prayer No.B in the plaint was in the nature
of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction
restraining
the
defendants
from
receiving
compensation from the office of Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),
Ghaziabad at the strength of sale deed of 2001.
Neither the said competent authority nor the
acquiring body being party to the proceedings,
the suit was bound to fail as per proviso
attached to Order 1 Rule 9 CPC. The provision
reads as under: -

"9. Misjoinder and non-joinder. - No suit shall be
defeated by reason of the misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties, and the Court may in every
suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as
regards the rights and interests of the parties
actually before it: Provided that nothing in this
rule shall be apply to non-joinder of a necessary
party." (emphasis supplied) (Para 13)

In view of the findings recorded by both the
courts below dealing with the case of the
plaintiff-appellant coupled with the effect of
Sections 189 and 190 of the Act, 1950, this
Court finds no good ground to entertain this
appeal even on admitted facts. (Para 14)

Appeal dismissed. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Tyagi,
learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
and perused the record.

2. A registered sale deed dated
31.05.2001 was executed by the plaintiffappellant in favour of the defendantrespondents and the Original Suit No.383
of 2010 was filed after nine years seeking
cancellation of the sale deed on the ground
that the signatures of the plaintiff (vendor)
were obtained by fraud and, in fact, the
plaintiff-appellant had taken a loan of
Rs.20,000/- from the vendee and sale deed
was neither intended to be executed nor
actually executed. The other plea was that
the sale deed was invalid for want of
permission from the Competent Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
has vehemently argued that the plaintiffappellant belongs to Scheduled Caste
Community and, therefore, as per Section
157-AA of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the Act,
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1950), unless there was a permission
accorded by the Competent Authority, sale
deed could not be executed. He further
submits that both the courts below have
also erred in not correctly examining the
plea of fraud and by merely observing that
the sale deed being a registered document,
there would be a presumption as regards its
validity, the suit has been dismissed. He
further submits that the plaintiff-appellant
was not aware of the execution of sale deed
and when proceedings for disbursement of
compensation by Avas Vikas Parishad were
held and the purchasers/ defendants put
their claim for getting the compensation,
the plaintiff-appellant came to know about
the fraud committed with him and,
therefore, the suit was filed. He also
submits that as per Section 166 of the Act,
1950, any transfer made in contravention of
the provisions of the Act shall be void and,
therefore, the sale deed would be void for
want of compliance of Section 157-AA.

4. The Court has perused the entire
record of proceedings attached to the
appeal.

5. As far as the first argument based
upon Section 157-AA of the Act, 1950 is
concerned, the Court finds that there was
no pleading in the plaint that the plaintiffappellant belongs to Scheduled Caste
Community. The plea of permission from
the Competent Authority was taken in
paragraph no.10 of the plaint but it was
not
stated
that
permission,
as
contemplated under Section 157-AA, was
required and even though it was not
necessary to plead any section of the
Statute, the pleading was to the effect that
the property was given on lease by the
State Government and, therefore, in
absence
of
permission
from
the
Competent Authority/ District Magistrate,
sale could not be effected and the sale
deed is void.

6. Sri Tyagi has drawn attention of
this Court towards Annexure no.1 to the
affidavit supporting stay application,
which is a photostat copy of caste
certificate
dated
26.03.2021
demonstrating the alleged status of the
plaintiff-appellant as a person belonging
to
Scheduled
Caste
Community.
Admittedly, this document did not form
part of the record of the courts below nor
has
any
application
for
additional
evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read
with Order 42 CPC by which the
provisions of Order 41 have been made
applicable to second appeals, been moved
before
this
Court.
Therefore,
the
photostat copy of the document filed as
Annexure no.1 cannot be read in the
present proceedings. Therefore, argument
on non-compliance of Section 157-AA
has no force.

7. In so far as the plea of fraud is
concerned, both the courts below have dealt
with oral and documentary evidence in this
regard and this Court does not find any
error or perversity in the view taken to the
effect that there was a presumption of
validity of the registered document. This
Court finds that such a view is in
consonance with the provisions of Sections
58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908
and though the presumption is rebutable, no
cogent evidence was led by the plaintiffappellant to rebut the said presumption.

8. There is another aspect of this
matter. The courts below have discussed
the acquisition proceedings initiated by
U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad in respect of land
in dispute. The initial notifications were
issued in the year 1998 and it appears that
7 All. Rambhool Vs. Sheeshpal & Ors.
815
the acquisition was either cancelled or held
up or stayed in the year 2006 by the State
Government, but, later on, in the year 2007,
fresh notifications were issued. It is also the
admitted case of the plaintiff-appellant that
he came to know about the execution of
sale deed in the year 2009-10 when the
defendants
were
trying
to
get
the
compensation released in their favour.

9. The land in dispute being
agricultural in nature, it is necessary to
discuss the effect of acquisition in respect
of agricultural land as regards the rights of
tenure holders are concerned.

10. Section 189 of the Act of 1950
deals with extinction of the interest of a
bhumidhar with transferable rights and
Section 190 is an identical provision in
respect of bhumidhar with non-transferable
rights. The said provisions are quoted
below:-

"189. Extinction of the interest
of
a
bhumidhar
with
transferable
rights.- The interest of a [bhumidhar with
transferable rights] in his holding or any
part thereof shall be extinguished-

(a) when he dies intestate leaving
no heir entitled to inherit in accordance
with the provisions of this Act;

(aa) when the holding or part
thereof has been transferred or let out in
contravention of the provisions of this Act;

(b) when the land comprised in
the holding has been acquired under any
law for the time being in force relating to
the acquisition of land; or

(c) when he has been deprived of
possession and his right to recover
possession is barred by limitation.
 190 Extinction of the interest of
a
bhumidhar
with
non-transferable
rights.- (1). Subject to the provisions of
Section 172, the interest of a [bhumidhar
with non-transferable rights] in a holding or
any part thereof shall be extinguished-

(a) when he dies having no heir
entitled to inherit in accordance with the
provisions of this Act;

(b) when the holding has been
declared as abandoned in accordance with
the provisions of Section 186;

(c) when he surrenders his
holding or part thereof;

(cc) when the holding or part
thereof has been transferred, let out or used
in contravention of the provisions of this
Act;

(d) when the land comprised in
the holding has been acquired under any
law for the time being in force relating to
the acquisition of land;

(e) when he has been ejected in
accordance with the provisions of this Act;
or
 (f) when he has been deprived of
possession and his right to recover
possession
is
barred
by
limitation."
(emphasis supplied)

11. A bare perusal of Sections 189 (c)
and 190(1)(d) of the Act, 1950 shows that
when the land comprised in the holding of
a bhumidhar with transferable rights or a
bhumidhar with non transferable rights has
been acquired under any law for the time
being in force relating to the acquisition of
land, the rights of the tenure holder would
extinct.

12. In the present case, though the
acquisition proceedings were discussed by
the courts below and even the plaintiff's
case is based upon plea of acquisition,
neither U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad, which is
the Acquiring Body, was arrayed as
defendant in the proceedings nor has the
appellant been able to establish as to how
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the land would remain under his title after
acquisition. The submission of Sri Tyagi in
this regard is that since the authorities for
disbursement of compensation are not
competent to examine the validity of the
registered sale deed, the suit was rightly
filed as the civil court only was competent
to deal with the plea of fraud etc.

13. This Court is not in a position to
accept the said submission for the simple reason
that irrespective of execution of sale deed,
whether the plaintiff-appellant is the owner or
the defendant-respondents, the rights in the
agricultural land in dispute vested absolutely in
Avas
Vikas
Parishad
after
acquisition.
Extinction of the interest, either of the plaintiffappellant or of the defendant-respondents
would nullify the entire suit proceedings on this
ground alone and, as aforesaid, U.P. Avas
Vikas Parishad not being party to the litigation
though it was a necessary party to the
proceedings, the suit would fail for all purposes.
The Court may note that prayer No.B in the
plaint was in the nature of decree of permanent
prohibitory
injunction
restraining
the
defendants from receiving compensation from
the office of Additional District Magistrate
(Finance and Revenue), Ghaziabad at the
strength of sale deed of 2001. Neither the said
competent authority nor the acquiring body
being party to the proceedings, the suit was
bound to fail as per proviso attached to Order 1
Rule 9 CPC. The provision reads as under:-

 "9.
Misjoinder
and
nonjoinder.- No suit shall be defeated by
reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of
parties, and the Court may in every suit
deal with the matter in controversy so far as
regards the rights and interests of the
parties actually before it:

Provided that nothing in this
rule shall be apply to non-joinder of a
necessary party." (emphasis supplied)

14. In view of the findings recorded
by both the courts below dealing with the
case of the plaintiff-appellant coupled with
the effect of Sections 189 and 190 of the
Act, 1950, this Court finds no good ground
to entertain this appeal even on admitted
facts.

15. No substantial question arises for
consideration.

16. The second appeal is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 816
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Second Appeal No. 472 of 2024

Padam Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Devi Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Sri B.D. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, Ms. Shalini Goel

Civil Law - Specific Relief Act, 1963 -
Section 20 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections
91 & 92 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -
Section 52 - A registered agreement for
sale
was
executed
in
respect
of
agricultural land in between the plaintiff -
respondent and defendant - appellant -
Another
registered
agreement
was
executed in respect of same property,
defendant agreed to sell in favour of
plaintiff, but when latter didn't adhere to
terms of agreement and, despite notice
issued by plaintiff, sale deed was not
executed
by
defendant
-
Suit
was
instituted by plaintiff no. 1, for specific