# Smt. Siya Dulari v. Awadh Naresh

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1479
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-11
- **Case number:** Matter Under Article 227 No. 4042 of 2022
- **Bench:** Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-siya-dulari-v-awadh-naresh-51613
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Civil law - Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 -
Sections 13, 14, 23, 24 & 34 - Constitution
of India,1950 - Article 227 - Petitioner
challenged the judgment dated 24.12.2021 by
Gram
Nyayalaya,
Manikpur,
Chitrakoot,
dismissing her suit (New Original Suit No.
41/2020, Old Original Suit No. 329/2018) for
declaring a sale deed dated 02.06.2018 void (on
grounds of fraud and undue influence) and for
permanent injunction. Suit, initially filed in Civil
Court (Junior Division), was transferred to Gram
1480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nyayalaya under Section 16 of the Act, 2008, by
District Judge's order (11.09.2020). Gram
Nyayalaya affirmed its jurisdiction (01.10.2020),
unopposed by petitioner at the time. Petitioner
contended Gram Nyayalaya lacked jurisdiction
under Section 13 and Part I of Second Schedule,
as suits for declaring sale deeds void are not
covered, and its detailed evidence recording
violated the summary procedure mandated by
Section 24. Court held that suits for cancellation
of sale deeds, being voidable under Sections 19,
19A of Indian Contract Act, require civil court
jurisdiction, not Gram Nyayalaya, as they do not
fall under "right to purchase of property" or
other disputes in Part I of Second Schedule.
Jurisdiction is a legislative function, and lack
thereof renders the decree a nullity, raisable at
any stage (Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs Director,
Cantonment Board Vs Church of North India,
Deva Sahayam Vs P. Savithramma). Revenue
court jurisdiction under U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, inapplicable as suit involved voidable sale
deed, not tenure-holder declaration. Judgment
set aside as without jurisdiction; case remitted
to District Court for adjudication by appropriate
civil court.

Petition allowed.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,852 of 53,637. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39852 for what follows._

3 All. Smt. Siya Dulari Vs. Awadh Naresh
1479
circumstances, the execution application
could have been registered and decided on
merits once it was hopelessly time-barred.

53. The learned counsel for the
private respondents also could not explain
the fact as to when the decree holders
themselves had moved the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with
the
Execution
Application
as
they
themselves knew that their application was
beyond the prescribed period of limitation
then in what circumstances such delay
could have been ignored, condoned and
how
such
a
time
barred
execution
application could be put to execution.

54. In light of the aforesaid
discussions, this Court is of the clear
opinion that the decree dated 21.01.1982
was hopelessly time barred and could not
be executed in the execution proceedings in
the year 2017.

55. For the aforesaid reasons, this
Court has no hesitation to hold that the
proceedings of Execution Case No. 8 of
2017 were ex-facie time barred and could
not be proceeded and all orders passed in
the execution proceedings including orders
by which the application under Section 47
C.P.C. was rejected and the orders passed
by the Revisional Court affirming the same
are per se against the settled legal
principles and the relevant sections of the
Limitation Act which have been noticed
hereinabove. Accordingly, the writ petition
bearing W.P. No. 1644 of 2022 and W.P.
No. 541 of 2024 are allowed on a cost of
Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to
the private respondent within a period of
three weeks from today by a demand draft
and as a consequence, the Execution Case
No. 8 of 2017 shall stand dismissed as time
barred subject to deposit of costs as
aforesaid. However, this in itself will not
entitle the petitioners to claim any right, or
interest whatsoever on any part of the land
or property of the private respondents
except the property which was the subject
matter of SCC Suit No 57 of 1980 from
which
the
execution
case
emerged.
Moreover, in case if the cost is not paid
within the aforesaid period, it shall be open
for the Executing Court in Case No. 8 of
2017 to recover the same through the
process of the Court from the judgment
debtor and pay it to the decree-holder along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1479
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 4042 of 2022

Smt. Siya Dulari ...Petitioner
Versus
Awadh Naresh ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Krishna Mohan Garg

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Satyvrat Tripathi, Sri Birendra Singh, Sri
Brijendra Kumar

Civil law - Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 -
Sections 13, 14, 23, 24 & 34 - Constitution
of India,1950 - Article 227 - Petitioner
challenged the judgment dated 24.12.2021 by
Gram
Nyayalaya,
Manikpur,
Chitrakoot,
dismissing her suit (New Original Suit No.
41/2020, Old Original Suit No. 329/2018) for
declaring a sale deed dated 02.06.2018 void (on
grounds of fraud and undue influence) and for
permanent injunction. Suit, initially filed in Civil
Court (Junior Division), was transferred to Gram
1480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nyayalaya under Section 16 of the Act, 2008, by
District Judge's order (11.09.2020). Gram
Nyayalaya affirmed its jurisdiction (01.10.2020),
unopposed by petitioner at the time. Petitioner
contended Gram Nyayalaya lacked jurisdiction
under Section 13 and Part I of Second Schedule,
as suits for declaring sale deeds void are not
covered, and its detailed evidence recording
violated the summary procedure mandated by
Section 24. Court held that suits for cancellation
of sale deeds, being voidable under Sections 19,
19A of Indian Contract Act, require civil court
jurisdiction, not Gram Nyayalaya, as they do not
fall under "right to purchase of property" or
other disputes in Part I of Second Schedule.
Jurisdiction is a legislative function, and lack
thereof renders the decree a nullity, raisable at
any stage (Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs Director,
Cantonment Board Vs Church of North India,
Deva Sahayam Vs P. Savithramma). Revenue
court jurisdiction under U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, inapplicable as suit involved voidable sale
deed, not tenure-holder declaration. Judgment
set aside as without jurisdiction; case remitted
to District Court for adjudication by appropriate
civil court.

Petition allowed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs Director (Para 18)

2. Cantonment Board Vs Church of North India
(Para 18)

3. Deva Sahayam Vs P. Savithramma (Para 18)

4. Smt. Bismillah Vs Janeshwar Prasad, (1990) 1
SCC 207 (Para 30)

5. Ram Padarath Vs Second Addl. District Judge,
(1989) 1 AWC 289 (All)(FB) (Paras 30, 32, 33)

6. Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs Jai Prakash
University (Para 31)

7. Ganga Prasad Vs Ram Das Alias Pappu (Para
32)

8. G. Mohan Rao Vs St. of Tamil Nadu (Para 34).
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg,
learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner
and Mr. Brijendra Kumar (Advocate Roll-
A/B 0457/23), Advocate holding brief of
Mr. Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the
defendant-respondent.

2. This petition has been filed seeking
to set aside the judgment and order dated
24.12.2021 passed by the Nyayadhikari,
Gram
Nyayalaya,
Manikpur,
District-
Chitrakoot passed in New Original Suit No.
41/2020 (Old Original Suit No.329/2018)
(Smt. Siya Dulari Vs. Awadh Naresh).

3. The contention on behalf of the
petitioner is that the plaintiff-petitioner
instituted a suit for declaring a sale deed
registered on 2.6.2018 as a void document
as well as for permanent injunction with
regard to the suit property. This suit was
instituted as Original Suit No. 329 of 2018
in the court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Chitrakoot and pleadings were
exchanged. The contention is that after
coming into force of the Gram Nyayalayas
Act, 20081, the District Judge by an order
dated 11.9.2020 directed that the record of
the suit be transferred to the Gram
Nyayalaya, Manikpur and, accordingly, on
14.9.2020, an order was passed by the court
concerned transferring the civil suit to the
Gram Nyayalaya in exercise of power
under Section 16 of the Act, 2008.

4. It is stated that issue No.5 was
framed which was that whether the court
had jurisdiction to hear the matter. By an
order dated 1.10.2020 the Gram Nyayalaya
held that since the counsel for the
defendant had made no arguments from
which it could be gauged that the Gram
Nyayalaya had no jurisdiction, therefore,
3 All. Smt. Siya Dulari Vs. Awadh Naresh
1481
the Gram Nyayalaya had jurisdiction to
decide the case and, accordingly, the issue
No.5 was decided in the affirmative.

5. It is stated that despite the
jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya to
decide those types of civil cases which are
provided in Part I of the Second Schedule
of the Act, 2008, the Gram Nyayalaya
proceeded to decide the suit which was for
declaring a sale deed as void. It is
contended that the provisions of Section 13
and 14 of the Act, 2008 circumscribe the
jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalayas, and a
suit for declaring a sale deed as void would
not lie within the jurisdiction of the Gram
Nyayalaya. It is further stated that by
means of the impugned judgment and order
dated 24.12.2021, the Gram Nyayalaya has
not only adjudicated and dismissed the suit,
but has exercised a jurisdiction and has
recorded evidence in a manner that is not
required to be done by a court which is
required to adopt a summary procedure for
adjudication. Learned counsel has referred
to the provision of Section 24 of the Act,
2008 in this regard. It is stated that
evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses were
recorded in detail as were the evidence of
the defendant's witnesses and thereafter the
judgment was passed, which is wholly
without jurisdiction and is void ab initio.

Learned counsel has referred to
the plaint to contend that basis of the suit
for seeking declaration of the voidance of a
sale deed was undue influence and fraud;
that the civil courts have jurisdiction to try
all suits unless they are expressly or
impliedly barred given the provisions of
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC); that Order 5 to Order 20 of the
CPC provide a detailed procedure for
conduct of suit till its logical conclusion
and it is Order 37 of the CPC that provides
for summary procedure. Learned counsel
has referred to clause (a) of Section 2 of the
Act, 2008 that defines Gram Nyayalaya,
Section
3
of
which
provides
for
establishment of Gram Nyayalaya; Sections
11, 12, 13 and 14 that deal with jurisdiction
of the Gram Nyayalaya and Sections 23
and 24 which provides for procedure in
civil cases. It is stated that Section 24
provides for filing of an application and not
a plaint. Under Section 23, the provisions
of the CPC, in so far as they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act,
2008, would apply to the procedure before
a Gram Nyayalaya and for the purpose of
the said provision of the code, the Gram
Nyayalaya shall be deemed to be a civil
court. It is stated that the procedure
reflected in Section 24 of the Act, 2008 is
in the nature of the summary trial which
excludes the detailed procedure provided
from Orders 5 to 20 of the CPC. Learned
counsel has referred to the provision of
Section 26 that provides for efforts for
conciliation
and
settlement
of
civil
disputes; Section 30 which refers to the
scope of application of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872; and, the manner of recording of
oral evidence as provided in Section 31, to
contend that given the special procedure so
provided, cases necessitating recording of
contentious and admissible evidence /
testimonies in detail, would not be fit to be
adjudicated by the Gram Nyayalaya.
Learned counsel has referred to Part I of
the Second Schedule of the Act, 2008 and
has stated that sub-clause (b) and (c) of
Clause (i) which refers to civil disputes for
the use of common pasture and for
regulation and timing of taking water from
irrigation
channel
pertain
to
Government/Gaon Sabha property; subclause (a) thereof, which provides for a
case relating to right to purchase of
property, refers to an agreement to sell
1482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which is prior to purchase of a property,
that is to say, the right of purchase of
property is a pre-existing right. It is stated
that Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 refers to specific performance of
contracts that falls within the ambit of subclause (a) aforesaid, that is, the right to
purchase of property. It is stated that given
the
provisions
for
cancellation
of
instruments
and
declaratory
decrees
referred to in Chapter V and Chapter VI of
the Specific Relief Act, even in specific
performance
suits
where
defence
of
void/voidable agreement is taken on the
ground of fraud and indue influence, the
same would exclude the jurisdiction of the
Gram
Nyayalaya
and
under
the
circumstances, a declaratory decree, as
envisaged under Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act, is not covered by sub-clause (a)
of clause (i) of Part I of the Second
Schedule of the Act, 2008.

6. Learned counsel for the defendantrespondent has referred to the preamble to
the Act, 2008 as well as Section 13 to
contend that given the scope of the Act and
the suit in question being within the
pecuniary limit prescribed for Gram
Nyayalayas by the High Court, the Gram
Nyayalaya will have jurisdiction in the
matter. It is stated that the order of the
District Judge, Chitrakoot dated 8.9.2020 is
on record which directed that civil cases
and
criminal
matters
pertaining
to
Manikpur and certain other tehsils pending
in the District Court, be transferred to the
Gram Nyayalaya concerned and therefore,
the
Gram
Nyayalaya
would
have
jurisdiction. It is further stated that under
Section 34 of the Act, 2008, if a remedy of
appeal would not lie due to valuation, then
a remedy of revision would anyway be
available. Learned counsel has referred to a
Judgement of the High Court of Bombay
passed in the Matter of Shobha Janardhan
Masram Vs. Ganpat Gulabrao Thakre2,
particularly, paragraph nos. 12 and 13
thereof to contend that since no objection
was raised before the Gram Nyayalaya with
regard to the jurisdiction and neither was
any appeal filed before the appellate court
against the order of the Gram Nyayalaya
affirming its jurisdiction, this petition ought
to be rejected.

7. The Act, 2008 came into force on
2.10.2009 by means of a notification dated
11.11.2009. The jurisdiction of Gram
Nyayalaya is in respect of both civil and
criminal matters under the prescribed
procedures and to the extent of the
jurisdiction provided in terms of Section 11
by the Act, 2008. As far as civil jurisdiction
is concerned, the relevant provision reads
as follows:

"13.
Civil jurisdiction.-
(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
or any other law for the time being in force,
and subject to sub-section (2), the Gram
Nyayalaya shall have jurisdiction to-

(a) try all suits or proceedings of
a civil nature falling under the classes of
disputes specified in Part I of the Second
Schedule;

(b) try all classes of claims and
disputes which may be notified by the
Central Government under sub-section (1)
of Section 14 and by the State Government
under sub-section (3) of the said section.

(2) The pecuniary limits of the
Gram Nyayalaya shall be such as may be
specified by the High Court, in consultation
with the State Government, by notification,
from time to time."

8. The Central and the State
Governments are empowered to amend the
3 All. Smt. Siya Dulari Vs. Awadh Naresh
1483
schedules to the Act, 2008 under the
provisions of Section 14 which reads as
follows:

"14.
Power
to
amend
Schedules.-
(1)
Where
the
Central
Government is satisfied that it is necessary
or expedient so to do, it may, by
notification, add to or omit any item in Part
I or Part II of the First Schedule or Part II
of the Second Schedule, as the case may
be, and it shall be deemed to have been
amended accordingly.

(2) Every notification issued
under sub-section (1) shall be laid before
each House of Parliament.

(3) If the State Government is
satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so
to do, it may, in consultation with the High
Court, by notification, add to any item in
Part III of the First Schedule or Part III of
the Second Schedule or omit from it any
item in respect of which the State
Legislature is competent to make laws and
thereupon the First Schedule or the Second
Schedule, as the case may be, shall be
deemed to have been amended accordingly.

(4) Every notification issued
under sub-section (3) shall be laid before
the State Legislature."

9. Chapter V of the Act, 2008
provides for the procedure in civil cases.
The relevant Sections mentioned in Chapter
V read as follows:

"23. Overriding effect of Act in
civil proceedings.- The provisions of this
Act shall have effect notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other
law, but save as expressly provided in this
Act, the provisions of the Code shall, in so
far as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act, apply to the
proceedings before a Gram Nyayalaya; and
for the purpose of the said provisions of the
Code, the Gram Nyayalaya shall be deemed
to be a civil Court.

24. Special procedure in civil
disputes.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time
being in force, every suit, claim or dispute
under this Act shall be instituted by making
an application to the Gram Nyayalaya in
such
form,
in
such
manner,
and
accompanied by such fee, not exceeding
rupees one hundred, as may be prescribed
by the High Court, from time to time, in
consultation with the State Government.

(2) Where a suit, claim or dispute
has been duly instituted, a summons shall
be issued by the Gram Nyayalaya,
accompanied by a copy of the application
made under sub-section (1), to the opposite
party to appear and answer the claim by
such date as may be specified therein and
the same shall be served in such manner as
may be prescribed by the High Court.

(3) After the opposite party files
his written statement, the Gram Nyayalaya
shall fix a date for hearing and inform all
the parties to be present in person or
through their advocates.

(4) On the date fixed for hearing,
the Gram Nyayalaya shall hear both the
parties in regard to their respective
contentions and where the dispute does not
require
recording
of
any
evidence,
pronounce the judgment; and in case where
it requires recording of evidence, the Gram
Nyayalaya shall proceed further.

(5) The Gram Nyayalaya shall
also have the power,-

(a) to dismiss any case for default
or to proceed ex parte; and

(b) to set aside any such order of
dismissal for default or any order passed by
it for hearing the case ex parte.
1484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(6) In regard to any incidental
matter that may arise during the course of
the proceedings, the Gram Nyayalaya shall
adopt such procedure as it may deem just
and reasonable in the interest of justice.

(7) The proceedings shall, as far
as practicable, be consistent with the
interests of justice and the hearing shall be
continued on a day-to-day basis until its
conclusion, unless the Gram Nyayalaya
finds the adjournment of the hearing
beyond the following day to be necessary
for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(8) The Gram Nyayalaya shall
dispose of the application made under subsection (1) within a period of six months
from the date of its institution.

(9) The judgment in every suit,
claim or dispute shall be pronounced in
open Court by the Gram Nyayalaya
immediately after conclusion of hearing or
at any subsequent time, not exceeding
fifteen days, of which notice shall be given
to the parties.

(10) The judgment shall contain a
concise statement of the case, the point for
determination, the decision thereon and the
reasons for such decision.

(11) A copy of the judgment shall
be delivered free of cost to both the parties
within three days from the date of
pronouncement of the judgment.

25. Execution of decrees and
orders
of
Gram
Nyayalaya.-
(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),
the judgment passed by a Gram Nyayalaya
shall be deemed to be a decree and it shall
be executed by a Gram Nyayalaya as a
decree of the civil Court and for this
purpose, the Gram Nyayalaya shall have all
the powers of a civil Court.

(2) The Gram Nyayalaya shall not
be bound by the procedure in respect of
execution of a decree as provided in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
and it shall be guided by the principles of
natural justice.

(3) A decree may be executed
either by the Gram Nyayalaya which
passed it or by the other Gram Nyayalaya
to which it is sent for execution.

26. Duty of Gram Nyayalaya to
make
efforts
for
conciliation
and
settlement of civil disputes.- (1) In every
suit or proceeding, endeavour shall be
made by the Gram Nyayalaya in the first
instance, where it is possible to do so,
consistent
with
the
nature
and
circumstances of the case, to assist,
persuade and conciliate the parties in
arriving at a settlement in respect of the
subject matter of the suit, claim or dispute
and for this purpose, a Gram Nyayalaya
shall follow such procedure as may be
prescribed by the High Court.

(2) Where
in
any
suit
or
proceeding, it appears to the Gram
Nyayalaya at any stage that there is a
reasonable possibility of a settlement
between the parties, the Gram Nyayalaya
may adjourn the proceeding for such period
as it thinks fit to enable them to make
attempts to effect such a settlement.

(3) Where any proceeding is
adjourned under sub-section (2), the Gram
Nyayalaya may, in its discretion, refer the
matter to one or more Conciliators for
effecting a settlement between the parties.

(4) The power conferred by subsection (2) shall be in addition to, and not
in derogation of, any other power of the
Gram Nyayalaya to adjourn the proceeding.

27.
Appointment
of
Conciliators.- (1) For the purposes of
Section 26, the District Court shall, in
consultation with the District Magistrate,
prepare a panel consisting of the names of
social workers at the village level having
3 All. Smt. Siya Dulari Vs. Awadh Naresh
1485
integrity for appointment as Conciliators
who possess such qualifications and
experience as may be prescribed by the
High Court.

(2) The sitting fee and other
allowances payable to, and the other terms
and
conditions
for
engagement
of,
Conciliators shall be such as may be
prescribed by the State Government."

10. The general procedure is provided
in Chapter VI of the Act, 2008 and the
relevant provisions are quoted below:

"30. Application
of
Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.- A Gram Nyayalaya
may receive as evidence any report,
statement, document, information or matter
that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal
effectually with a dispute, whether or not
the same would be otherwise relevant or
admissible under the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (1 of 1872).

31. Record of oral evidence.- In
suits or proceedings before a Gram
Nyayalaya, it shall not be necessary to
record the evidence of witnesses at length,
but the Nyayadhikari, as the examination of
each witness proceeds, shall, record or
cause to be recorded, a memorandum of
substance of what the witness deposes, and
such memorandum shall be signed by the
witness and the Nyayadhikari and it shall
form part of the record.

32.
Evidence
of
formal
character on affidavit.- (1) The evidence
of any person where such evidence is of a
formal character, may be given by affidavit
and may, subject to all just exceptions, be
read in evidence in any suit or proceeding
before a Gram Nyayalaya.

(2) The Gram Nyayalaya may, if
it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of
any of the parties to the suit or proceeding,
summon and examine any such person as to
the facts contained in his affidavit."

11. The provisions for appeals in civil
cases is provided in Section 34 of the
Chapter VII which reads as follows:

"34. Appeal in civil cases.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
or any other law, and subject to sub-section
(2), an appeal shall lie from every judgment
or order, not being an interlocutory order,
of a Gram Nyayalaya to the District Court.

(2) No appeal shall lie from any
judgment or order passed by the Gram
Nyayalaya-

(a) with the consent of the parties;

(b) where the amount or value of
the subject matter of a suit, claim or dispute
does not exceed rupees one thousand;

(c) except on a question of law,
where the amount or value of the subject
matter of such suit, claim or dispute does
not exceed rupees five thousand.

(3) Every appeal under this
section shall be preferred within a period of
thirty days from the date of the judgment or
order of a Gram Nyayalaya:

Provided that the District Court
may entertain an appeal after the expiry of
the said period of thirty days if it is
satisfied that the appellant had sufficient
cause for not preferring the appeal within
the said period.

(4) An appeal preferred under
sub-section (1) shall be heard and disposed
of by the District Court within six months
from the date of filing of the appeal.

(5) The District Court may,
pending disposal of the appeal, stay
execution of the judgment or order
appealed against.

(6) The decision of the District
Court under sub-section (4) shall be final
1486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and no appeal or revision shall lie from the
decision of the District Court:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall preclude any person from
availing of the judicial remedies available
under
articles
32
and
226
of
the
Constitution."

12. Part I of the Second Schedule of
the Act, 2008 reads as follows:

"PART I

SUITS
OF A
CIVIL
NATURE
WITHIN
THE
JURISDICTION
OF
GRAM NYAYALAYAS

(i) Civil Disputes:

(a) right to purchase of property;

(b) use of common pasture;

(c) regulation and timing of
taking water from irrigation channel.

(ii) Property Disputes:

(a) village and farm houses
(Possession);

(b) water channels;

(c) right to draw water from a
well or tube well.

(iii) Other Disputes:

(a) claims under the Payment of
Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936);

(b) claims under the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948);

(c) money suits either arising
from trade transaction or money lending;

(d) disputes arising out of the
partnership in cultivation of land;

(e) disputes as to the use of forest
produce
by
inhabitants
of
Gram
Panchayats."

13. In exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 39 of the Gram
Nyayalayas Act, Section 122 of the C.P.C.
and all other powers enabling it in this
behalf, the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad
in
consultation
with
the
Government of Uttar Pradesh made the
Uttar Pradesh Gram Nyayalaya (Procedure
and Practice) Rules, 20093. With regard to
pecuniary
jurisdiction
of
the
Gram
Nayayalaya and the court fee payable, Rule
10 of the Rules of 2009 provides as
follows:

"10. Pecuniary jurisdiction of
the Gram Nyayalaya and the court fee
payable.- (a) The Gram Nyayalaya shall
have jurisdiction to entertain and decide all
civil proceeding of valuation up to
Rs.25,000/-:

Provided that the value for the
purpose of determining the jurisdiction
shall be done as per the provisions of the
Suits Valuation Act 1887 read with the
Count Fees Act, 1989.

Further provided that the High
Court
may
from
time
to
time
in
consultation with the State Government
increase or reduce the limit of pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Nyayadhikari.

(b) A fixed Court fee of Rs. 50
shall be payable on every plaint or original
petition.

(c)
The
fees
payable
on
vakalatnama shall be Rs.5 and on all other
applications shall be Rs.2."

14. The Act, 2008, thus ousts the
jurisdiction of civil courts in view of the
jurisdiction
conferred
on
the
Gram
Nyayalaya with respect to scheduled
matters which fall under the pecuniary
jurisdiction of Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, PartI of the Second Schedule to the Act, 2008
read with Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 13 of the Act, 2008, civil disputes,
property disputes and other disputes as
3 All. Smt. Siya Dulari Vs. Awadh Naresh
1487
mentioned
thereunder,
confers
such
jurisdiction on Gram Nyayalayas.

15. In the aforesaid suit, two distinct
reliefs were claimed, one being a decree of
declaration for declaring the sale deed
dated 2.6.2018 as void and another for
grant of permanent injunction that the
defendant be restrained from disposing of
the suit property during pendency of the
suit.

16. Evidently, the pleadings were
exchanged and at the stage of evidence, the
learned District Judge transferred the suit to
the Gram Nyayalaya in the year 2020.

17. A copy of the order-sheet of the
suit has been enclosed as Annexure No. 7
to this petition and, as reflected therein, on
1.10.2020, counsel for the parties were
heard with regard to the issue no. 5 which
was that whether the Gram Nyayalaya had
jurisdiction to consider the suit. The Gram
Nyayalaya observed that the valuation of
the suit was made at Rs. 390/- which was
affirmed to be correct by the court in its
order dated 24.10.2019; learned counsel for
the
defendants
had
made
no
such
submission from which it could be
reflected that the Nyayalaya had no
jurisdiction to hear the suit. Accordingly, it
was held that the Gram Nyayalaya has
jurisdiction. It is admitted that the aforesaid
order dated 1.10.2022 adjudicating the
issue no. 5 was not challenged by the
plaintiff-petitioner at an earlier point of
time. By means of the judgment and order
dated 24.12.2021, the suit of the plaintiffpetitioner was dismissed.

18. As regards the submission of the
counsel for the respondent that the order
dated 1.10.2022 affirming jurisdiction in
the case by the Gram Nyayalaya not having
being challenged earlier, the Supreme
Court has held in various judgments that
conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative
function and it can neither be conferred
with the consent of the parties nor by a
superior court, and if a court passes a
decree having no jurisdiction over the
matter, it would amount to nullity as the
matter goes to the root of the cause. Such
an issue can be raised at any stage of the
proceedings. (Vide: Jagmittar Sain Bhagat
v. Director4, Cantonment Board v. Church
of North India5, Deva Sahayam v. P.
Savithramma6.)

19. As regards jurisdiction, the
present case requires consideration on two
aspect. Firstly, whether, given the nature of
the relief sought in respect of agricultural
land, would it be the revenue courts which
would have jurisdiction in the matter given
the fact that declaration was sought for
declaring the sale deed as void, or, would
either the civil court or the Gram
Nyayalaya have jurisdiction. Secondly,
whether the Gram Nyayalaya or the civil
court had jurisdiction to try the suit in view
of the jurisdiction conferred by Clause (a)
of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act,
2008 read with Part I of the Second
Schedule of the Act.

20. The Act, 2008 received the assent
of the President on 7.1.2009 and was
published
in
the
Gazette
of
India,
Extraordinary Part-II, Section I, dated 9th
January 2009. The preamble of the Act is to
provide for the establishment of Gram
Nyayalayas at the grass roots level for the
purposes of providing access to justice to
the citizens at their doorsteps and to ensure
that opportunities for securing justice are
not denied to any citizen by reason of
social, economic or other disabilities and
1488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for
matters
connected
therewith
or
incidental thereto.

21. In the Statement of Objects and
Reasons, with reference to Article 39-A of
the Constitution and 114th report of the
Law Commission of India on Gram
Nyayalayas recommending establishment
of Gram Nyayalayas so that speedy,
inexpensive and substantial justice could be
provided to the common man, the Bill was
introduced on the lines recommended by
the
Department
Related
Standing
Committee
on
Personnel,
Public
Grievances, Law and Justice.

22. The extracts of salient features of
the Bill as apparent from the Statement of
Objects and Reasons, are as follows:-

• The Gram Nyayalaya shall be
court of Judicial Magistrate of the first
class
and
its
presiding
officer
(Nyayadhikari) shall be appointed by the
State Government in consultation with the
High Court;

• The Gram Nyayalaya shall be
established
for
every
Panchayat
at
intermediate level or a group of contiguous
Panchayats at intermediate level in a
district or where there is no Panchayat at
intermediate level in any State, for a group
of contiguous Panchayats;

• The Gram Nyayalaya shall try
criminal cases, civil suits, claims or
disputes which are specified in the First
Schedule and the Second Schedule to the
proposed Bill with the Central Government
as well as the State Governments being
given power to amend the First Schedule
and the Second Schedule of the proposed
Bill as per their respective legislative
competence;

• The Gram Nyayalaya shall
follow summary procedure in criminal trial
as provided under sub-section (1) of
Section 262 and Sections 262, 264 and 265
of the Cr.P.C. with certain modifications
and as regards other matters which are not
provided in the Bill, the provisions of the
Cr.P.C. shall be applicable;

• The power of a civil court shall
be exercisable by the Gram Nyayalaya with
certain
modifications
and
the
Gram
Nyayalaya
shall
follow
the
special
procedure; as regards other matters which
are not provided in the Bill, the provisions
of the C.P.C. shall be applicable;

• The Gram Nyayalaya shall try
to settle the disputes as far as possible by
bringing about conciliation between the
parties and for this purpose, it shall make
use of the conciliators to be appointed for
this purpose;

• The judgment and order passed
by the Gram Nyayalaya shall be deemed to
be a decree and to avoid delay in its
execution, the Gram Nyayalaya shall
follow
summary
procedure
for
its
execution;

• The Gram Nyayalaya shall not
be bound by the rules of evidence provided
in the Indian Evidence Act but shall be
guided by the principles of natural justice
and subject to any rule made by the High
Court;

• A person accused of an offence
may file an application for plea bargaining
in Gram Nyayalaya in which such offence
is pending trial and the same will be
disposed of by that Gram Nyayalaya in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter
XXI-A of the Cr.P.C

23. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons further provides that justice to the
poor at their doorstep is the dream of the
common man. Setting up of Gram
Nyayalayas, which will travel from place to
place, would bring to the people of rural
3 All. Smt. Siya Dulari Vs. Awadh Naresh
1489
areas speedy, affordable and substantial
justice.

24. There is an aspect of jurisdiction
relating to the subject matter of the suit and
then there is the aspect of pecuniary
jurisdiction that has been fixed by the High
Court in the rules mentioned above, which
is a limit of Rs.25,000/-. The pecuniary
jurisdiction so fixed is in respect of only
those suits, claims or disputes that are
within the jurisdiction of the Gram
Nyayalaya as provided for in the Schedule
to the Act, 2008.

25. The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code,
20067 was passed by the Uttar Pradesh
State Legislature and it received the assent
of the President on 29th November 2012.
The Code, 2006 was amended by the Uttar
Pradesh Revenue Code (Amendment) Act,
2016.
The
Governor
appointed
18
December 2015 and 11 February 2016 as
the dates on which separate provisions of
the Code, 2006 came into force. The
provisions of the Code, 2006, except
Chapters VIII and IX (which chapters
pertain to (i) management of land and other
properties by Gram Panchayat or other
local authorities, and, (ii) tenures), are
mandated to apply to whole of Uttar
Pradesh and the aforesaid Chapters VIII
and IX are mandated to apply to the areas
to which any of the enactments specified at
serial nos.19 and 25 of the First Schedule to
the Code, 2006 were applicable on the date
immediately preceding their repeal by the
Code, 2006. At serial no.19 of the First
Schedule is the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. At
serial no.25 of the First Schedule is the
Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956.

26. The aforesaid two enactments of
1950 and 1956, including other enactments,
specified in the First Schedule of the Code,
2006, were repealed with effect from
11.2.2016 in terms of Section 230 of the
Code, 2006. However, as far as pending
proceedings are concerned, Section 231 of
the Code reads as follows:-

"231. Applicability of the Code
to pending proceedings.- (1) Save as
otherwise expressly provided in this Code,
all
cases
pending
before
the
State
Government
or
any
revenue
court
immediately before the commencement of
this Code, whether in appeal, revision,
review or otherwise, shall be decided in
accordance with the provisions of the
appropriate law, which would have been
applicable to them had this Code not been
passed.

(2) All cases pending in any Civil
Court
immediately
before
the
commencement of this Code which would
under this Code be exclusively triable by a
revenue Court; shall be disposed of by such
Civil Court according to the law in force
prior to the date of such commencement."

27. The suit was instituted in the year
2018. The plots of land in respect of which
the suit has been filed are agricultural plots
and the plaintiff's husband is stated to be
the owner of the one-third part of each of
the three plots. In the plaint, the defendant
is referred to as the brother of the
petitioner's husband, who is the co-tenure
holder of one-fourth part of the property in
dispute; that the plaintiff has only a
daughter but no sons; that the husband of
the plaintiff was ill and the entire expenses
of his treatment was borne by the plaintiff
and the plaintiff's brother-in-law; that in
June, 2018, the plaintiff's husband suddenly
fell ill and therefore, the plaintiff sent him
1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
along with his brother (the plaintiff's
brother-in-law) to the doctor with all the
prescriptions. The plaintiff's husband died
on 25.8.2018 and after the funeral and postfuneral rites, when the plaintiff went for
mutation of her name to the revenue
authorities, she was informed that her
brother-in-law has got his name mutated in
the revenue records with regard to the
aforesaid plots in dispute. After obtaining a
copy of the sale deed allegedly executed by
the plaintiff's husband in favour of her
brother-in-law, it transpired that it was
fraudulently executed. It was stated that the
sale deed that was fraudulently got
executed was a void document which is
liable to be declared as such. Further relief
of permanent injunction was also sought
against the defendant.

28. Therefore, the case in the plaint is
of the defendant having got the signatures
of the petitioner's husband fraudulently
made on the sale deed. Given the
provisions under Chapter II of the Indian
Contract Act, the alleged sale deed was
voidable at the option of the party whose
consent was caused by alleged coercion,
fraud
or
misrepresentation
or
undue
influence.

29. The option of avoiding a contract
procured in any of the ways mentioned in
Sections 19 and 19A of the Contract Act, is
exercisable by the party's representatives,
unless at the date of his death, he had lost it
by acquiescence or otherwise8.

30. Reference, in the plaint to the
alleged sale deed as being 'void', would
have to be construed in terms of the above
provisions of the Contract Act and the
various judgments of this Court and the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the
matter of Smt. Bismillah Vs. Janeshwar
Prasad and others9 while referring to the
various judgments passed by this Court
including in the case of Ram Padarath
and others Vs. Second Addl. District
Judge and others10 observed as follows:

"9. ..... 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...."

31. The terms 'void' and voidable'
were considered by the Supreme Court in
the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs.
Jai Prakash University11 and it was
observed as follows:

"22. Thus the expressions "void
and voidable" have been the subject-matter
of consideration on innumerable occasions
by courts. The expression "void" has
several facets. One type of void acts,
transactions, decrees are those which are
wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void
and for avoiding the same no declaration is
necessary, law does not take any notice of
the same and it can be disregarded in
collateral proceeding or otherwise. The
other type of void act, e.g., may be
transaction against a minor without being
represented by a next friend. Such a
transaction is a good transaction against the
whole world.