# Surya Kumar Tripathi Deceased & Ors v. Ram Pal

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 169
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-24
- **Case number:** Second Appeal No. 151 of 2016
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surya-kumar-tripathi-deceased-ors-v-ram-pal-52959
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 229-B &
331- Second Appeal - against judgments and
decrees passed by the lower courts, - on the
ground that suit was barred by Section 331 of
the Act, 1950 - plaintiff-respondent alleged that
on the basis of a forged unregistered Power of
Attorney - a Sale deed was executed - FIR -
Suit - for cancellation of Sale deed - Defendantappellant objected that Suit was barred by
Section 331 of Act, 1950, as the name of the
defendant-respondents was recorded in the
revenue records - Suit was allowed & decreed -
Civil Appeal - allowed & decreed - Second
Appeal - Court finds that, - the plaintiffrespondent filed the suit for cancellation of the
sale deed on the grounds of fraud, alleging that
the Power of Attorney was void and the sale
deed was executed based on this fraudulent
document - The execution of the alleged
unregistered Power of Attorney also has been
denied by the plaintiff-respondent - Hon'ble
Supreme court held that no right, title or
interest can be transferred with respect to
immovable properties on the basis of an
unregistered agreement to sell or on the basis
of an unregistered Power of Attorney, which has
been found fraudulent, so it cannot be said that
suit was not maintainable - held, Plaintiffrespondent as bhumidhar of the land in dispute
can file a suit for cancellation of sale deed
before the Civil Court on the ground of Fraud
and misrepresentation as revenue court does
not have jurisdiction for granting such relief of
cancellation
of
sale
deed
and
in
such
circumstances no declaration of title is required
- hence, there is no illegality or error in the
impugned judgments and decrees - accordingly,
second appeal is dismissed. (Para - 15, 17, 18)
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Special Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Surya Kumar Tripathi Deceased & Ors. Vs. Ram Pal
169
laxity or wrong of not filing the decree.
Thus on this technical ground the decree
passed by the court's below cannot be
reversed, modified or the case remanded as
it does not affect the merits of case in view
of Section 99 of Civil Procedure Code.

12. There is one more reason for non
availability of the aforesaid technical
ground of decree to the appellant is that if
such ground is permitted to be taken then
the appellants may get the appeal filed
annexing a copy of the judgment and get
the record of the trial court summoned
immediately after receipt of the copy of the
judgment,
which
is
to
be
issued
immediately after pronouncement of the
judgment for preferring an appeal so that
the decree may not be prepared and in case
of adverse decision, the ground may be set
up in this regard. Thus this ground is
misconceived and not tenable.

13. In view of above, this court does
not find any illegality or error in the
impugned judgment and decrees passed by
the courts below. No substantial question of
law arises in this appeal. The Second
Appeal has been filed on misconceived and
baseless grounds.

14.
The
Second
Appeal
is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 169
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Second Appeal No. 151 of 2016

Surya Kumar Tripathi Deceased & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Ram Pal ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Madhav Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mayank Pandey, Ashok Shukla, Brijesh
Kumar, Nirmal Singh Yadav, Prince Kumar,
Raj Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar Yadav,
Shailendra Kumar Singh, Shyam Kishor

Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 100 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 229-B &
331- Second Appeal - against judgments and
decrees passed by the lower courts, - on the
ground that suit was barred by Section 331 of
the Act, 1950 - plaintiff-respondent alleged that
on the basis of a forged unregistered Power of
Attorney - a Sale deed was executed - FIR -
Suit - for cancellation of Sale deed - Defendantappellant objected that Suit was barred by
Section 331 of Act, 1950, as the name of the
defendant-respondents was recorded in the
revenue records - Suit was allowed & decreed -
Civil Appeal - allowed & decreed - Second
Appeal - Court finds that, - the plaintiffrespondent filed the suit for cancellation of the
sale deed on the grounds of fraud, alleging that
the Power of Attorney was void and the sale
deed was executed based on this fraudulent
document - The execution of the alleged
unregistered Power of Attorney also has been
denied by the plaintiff-respondent - Hon'ble
Supreme court held that no right, title or
interest can be transferred with respect to
immovable properties on the basis of an
unregistered agreement to sell or on the basis
of an unregistered Power of Attorney, which has
been found fraudulent, so it cannot be said that
suit was not maintainable - held, Plaintiffrespondent as bhumidhar of the land in dispute
can file a suit for cancellation of sale deed
before the Civil Court on the ground of Fraud
and misrepresentation as revenue court does
not have jurisdiction for granting such relief of
cancellation
of
sale
deed
and
in
such
circumstances no declaration of title is required
- hence, there is no illegality or error in the
impugned judgments and decrees - accordingly,
second appeal is dismissed. (Para - 15, 17, 18)
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Special Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajni Tandon Vs Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar &
anr.; (2009) 14 SCC 782,

2. Shri Ram & anr. Vs 1st A.D.J. & ors.; (2001) 3
SCC 24,

3. Kamla Prasad & ors. Vs Kishna Kant Pathak &
ors.; (2007) 4 SCC 213,

4. Narendra Kumar Mittal & ors. Vs Nupur Housing
Development Pvt. Ltd. & anr.; 2019 Legal Eagle
(SC) 797/ 2019 (7) JT 553,

5. Kundan Singh Vs Addl. District Judge, Bijnore &
ors.; 2008 SCC OnLine All 2050,

6. Shakeel Ahmed Vs Syed Akhlaq Hussain; 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1526,

7. Chhanga & ors. Vs 1st A.D.J., Jaunpur; 1998
Legal Eagle (ALD) 541/1998 (3) AWC 2094,

8. Ram Padarath Vs Second A.D.J.; 1989 RD 21
(All) (FB).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard, Shri Sudeep Seth, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Madhav
Chaturvedi,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants and Shri Ashok Shukla, learned
counsel for the respondent.

2. This Second Appeal under Section
100 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 has
been filed with a prayer to call for the
records and after its perusal, this instant
second appeal may be allowed and further
be pleased to set aside the judgment and
decree dated 27.01.2016 passed in Regular
Civil Appeal No.310 of 2003 by the
Additional District Judge, Court No.17,
Lucknow and the judgment and decree
dated 12.11.2003 passed in Regular Suit
No.156 of 1995 by the VIth Additional
Civil
Judge
(Jr.Div.),
Court
No.38,
Lucknow or pass any other suitable decree
which this Hon'ble Court deems just and
proper in the interest of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the defendantsappellants submitted that the suit filed by
the plaintiff-respondent was barred by
Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(here-in-after referred as Act of 1950) as
the name of defendant-respondents was
recorded in the revenue records, therefore,
the suit could have been filed only before
the Revenue Court with a prayer for
declaration of his rights. He further
submitted that the plaintiff-respondent was
not in possession of the land in dispute,
therefore, also no relief could have been
granted by the Civil Court.

4. On the basis of above, learned
counsel
for
the
defendant-appellants
submitted that the judgment and decrees
passed by the courts below are not tenable
in the eyes of law and are liable to be set
aside. He relied on Rajni Tandon Versus
Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar and
another; (2009) 14 SCC 782, Shri Ram
and another Versus Ist Addl. Distt.
Judge and others; (2001) 3 SCC 24,
Kamla Prasad and others Versus Kishna
Kant Pathak and others; (2007) 4 SCC
213, Narendra Kumar Mittal and others
Versus Nupur Housing Development
Pvt.Ltd. And Another; 2019 Legal Eagle
(SC) 797/ 2019 (7) JT 553 and Kundan
Singh
Versus
Addl.District
Judge,
Bijnore and others; 2008 SCC OnLine
All 2050.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the suit was filed
only for cancellation of sale deed and no
prayer for injunction was made, therefore,
1 All. Surya Kumar Tripathi Deceased & Ors. Vs. Ram Pal
171
the plea of learned counsel for the
defendants-appellants that possession was
required to be pleaded is misconceived and
not tenable as it was not in issue. He further
submitted that the suit for cancellation of
sale deed was rightly filed before the Civil
Court as no declaration of title was required
because admittedly the plaintiff-respondent
was bhumidhar of the land in dispute and
therefore the suit was filed on the ground of
fraud. He further submitted that the Power
of Attorney was a void document as it was
not executed by the plaintiff-respondent
and sale deed was got executed on the basis
of the said void document, therefore, the
sale deed was required to be cancelled
considering its veracity. Even otherwise the
Power of Attorney does not give any title.

6. On the basis of above learned counsel
for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the
courts below have passed the judgment and
decrees in accordance with law, which does
not require any interference by this court. The
appeal has been filed on misconceived and
baseless grounds. No substantial question of
law arises in this appeal, therefore, it does not
require even admission. Thus the appeal is
liable to be dismissed. He relied on Shakeel
Ahmed Versus Syed Akhlaq Hussain;
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1526, Narendra
Kumar Mittal and others Versus Nupur
Housing
Development
Pvt.Ltd.
And
Another; 2019 Legal Eagle (SC) 797/ 2019
(7) JT 553 and Chhanga and others Versus
Ist Additional District Judge, Jaunpur;
1998 Legal Eagle (ALD) 541/1998 (3)
AWC 2094.

7. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

8. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit
for cancellation of sale deed on the ground
that by preparing forged Power of Attorney
dated 30.03.1992 in favour of defendant no.1
on behalf of plaintiff-respondent the sale deed
has been executed on 23.05.1992 in favour of
defendants no.2 to 6. On coming to know
about the same First Information Report was
lodged against the defendants. No sale
consideration has been paid to the plaintiffrespondent. It was also alleged that no
agreement of sale dated 11.10.1991 was
executed by the plaintiff-respondent in favour
of the defendant-appellants nor the defendant
no.1 was authorized to execute the sale deed.
The suit was contested by the defendantappellants by filing written statement and
alleging that the agreement to sale was
executed by the plaintiff-respondent on
11.10.1991. Thereafter he executed the
Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant
no.1 for execution of sale deed. On the basis
of the said Power of Attorney, the sale deed
was executed, the sale consideration of which
was paid to the plaintiff-respondent. The
names of defendants no.2 to 6 have been
recorded in revenue records. The plaintiffrespondent after receiving the sale consideration,
gave notice and filed the suit to blackmail the
defendants, which is barred by Section 331 of the
Act of 1950. On the basis of the pleadings of the
parties five issues were framed by the trial court.
Thereafter oral as well as documentary evidence
was adduced by the parties. Considering the
pleadings, evidence and material on record the
suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated
12.11.2003 and sale deed dated 23.05.1992 was
cancelled. Being aggrieved Civil Appeal bearing
Civil Appeal No.310 of 2003 was filed by the
defendant-appellants, which has been dismissed
by means of the judgment and decree dated
27.01.2016 confirming the order passed by the
trial court. Hence this second appeal has been
filed.

9. Section 331 of the Act of 1950
provides the cognizance of suits etc. under
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Act. According to the Section 331 of
the Act of 1950 except as provided by or
under the Act no court other than a court
mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II
shall,
take
cognizance
of
any
suit,
application, or proceedings mentioned in
Column 3 in respect of which any relief
could be obtained by means of any such
suit or application. On perusal of Schedule
II of the Act 1950 it is apparent that no
proceedings have been shown under
Column 3 which could have been instituted
for cancellation of sale deed. However it
was argued that since the declaration of
rights was required, therefore, the suit
should have been instituted under Section
229-B of the Act of 1950. Section 229-B
provides
declaratory
suit
by
person
claiming to be an asami of a holding or part
thereof. The provisions would also apply
mutatis mutandis to a suit by a person
claiming to be a bhumidhar. The suit under
Section 229-B can be filed for declaration
of rights against the State. However the
other person, if any, claiming such rights is
also required to be impleaded.

10. The trial court, while considering the
issue of bar of Section 331 of the Act of
1950, after considering a Full bench Decision
of this Court in the case of Ram Padarath
Versus Second ADJ; 1989 RD 21 (All)
(FB) relied by defendant-appellants, has held
that
since
indisputably
the
plaintiffrespondent was bhumidhar of the land in
dispute and he is denying the sale of the land
in dispute through the impugned sale deed
and he wants to get the sale deed cancelled to
protect his interest, therefore, he could have
filed the suit before the civil court because if
the sale deed in question exit it may be
adverse to the interest and rights of the
plaintiff-respondent.
The
learned
lower
appellate court has upheld the findings
recorded by the trial court.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme court, in the
case of Shri Ram and another Versus Ist
Addl.Distt.Judge and others (Supra),
after considering the Full Bench decision of
this court in the case of Ram Padarath
Versus Second ADJ; 1989 RD 21 (All)
(FB) has held that where a recorded tenure
holder having a prima facie title and in
possession files suit in the civil court for
cancellation of sale deed having 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. The relevant paragraphs
4 and 7 are extracted here-in-below:-

"4. In the present case what we
find is that the vendor Smt Vidyawati Devi
admitted that she had executed a registered
sale deed in favour of the appellants on 127-1984. She also admitted that she
delivered the possession of the said land to
the appellants and the appellants are in
possession over the said plot of land. It is
also on record that the names of the
appellants have been ordered to be
recorded as a tenure-holder in the revenue
record. The aforesaid facts show that the
appellants are the recorded tenure-holders
in possession of the plot in dispute in
pursuance of the sale deed dated 12-71984. The question that now arises for
consideration is whether a recorded
tenure-holder having prima facie title in
his favour and in possession is required to
file a suit in the Revenue Court or the civil
court has jurisdiction to entertain and
decide
the
suit
seeking
relief
of
cancellation of a void document. In Ram
Padarath v. Second ADJ [1989 RD 21
(All) (FB)] a Full Bench of the Allahabad
High Court considered this aspect of the
matter and held thus:
1 All. Surya Kumar Tripathi Deceased & Ors. Vs. Ram Pal
173

"We are of the view that the case
of Indra Dev v. Ram Piari [(1982) 8 ALR
517] has been correctly decided and the
said decision requires no consideration,
while the Division Bench case, Ayodhya
Prasad
(Dr) v. Gangotri
Prasad [1981
AWC 469] is regarding the jurisdiction of
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 and a tenureholder 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 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."

7. On analysis of the decisions
cited above, we are of the opinion that
where a recorded tenure-holder having a
prima facie title and in possession files suit
in the civil court for cancellation of sale
deed having 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 tenureholder 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."

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Kamla Prasad and others
Versus Kishna Kant Pathak and others
(Supra), considered the issue in regard to a
suit in which the case of the plaintiff in the
plaint was that over and above the plaintiff,
defendants 10 to 12 had also right in the
agricultural land and after considering the
pleadings and evidence and the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Shri Ram Versus Ist ADJ (Supra) and
the fact that in the mutation proceedings the
plaintiff himself appeared as a witness before
the mutation court and admitted execution of
the sale deed, receipt of sale consideration
and the factum of putting vendees into
possession of the properties purchased by
them, on the basis of which the name of the
contesting defendants had been mutated in
the records of rights and name of plaintiff
was
deleted.
In
the
said
facts
and
circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the courts below were wholly right
in reaching the conclusions that such a suit
can be entertained only by a Revenue Court
and civil court had no jurisdiction and in such
circumstances declaration of rights was also
required. Similar view was taken by a Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of
Kundan Singh Versus Addl. District
Judge, Bijnore and others (Supra), relying
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kamla Prasad and
others Versus Kishna Kant Pathak and
others and Shri Ram and another versus
Ist Addl. Distt. Judge and others (Supra).

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Narendra Kumar Mittal and
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others
Versus
Nupur
Housing
Development
Pvt.Ltd.
and
Another
(Supra), after considering the aforesaid
judgments and the judgment in the Full
Bench decision of this court in the case of
Ram Padarath Versus Second ADJ,
Sultanpur and others (Supra) dismissed
the appeal holding that Section 331 of the
Act of 1950 does not deprive a party 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 and
revenue court does not have jurisdiction of
granting relief of cancellation of a deed on
the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.
The relevant paragraph 7 is extracted herein-below:-

7. 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 15.06.2006 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 15.06.2006. We are
of the view that Section 331 of the Act does
not deprive a party of his right to approach
competent court of law for getting a
document
cancelled,
especially
when,
prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure
holder is not under cloud. Revenue Court
does not have jurisdiction of granting relief
of cancellation of a deed on the ground of
fraud and misrepresentation."

14. In view of above in case a suit for
cancellation of sale deed by a person having
prima facie title and no cloud on his title can
file a suit for cancellation of sale deed before
the Civil Court on the ground of fraud and
misrepresentation as revenue court does not
have jurisdiction for granting relief of
cancellation of sale deed on these grounds
and in such circumstances no declaration of
title is required.

15. In the present case the title of the
plaintiff-respondent as bhumidhar of the land
in dispute or any cloud on his title could not
be raised by the defendants-appellants and it
could also not have been raised because the
alleged forged sale deed was executed on his
behalf. Thus the plea of bar of Section 331 of
the Act of 1950 has rightly been considered
and decided by the courts below holding that
it is not barred by Section 331. This court
does not find any illegality or error in the
findings so recorded by the courts below.

16. This court, in the case of Chhanga
and others Versus Ist Additional District
Judge, Jaunpur (Supra), has held that from
Section 331 of the Act of 1950, it is explicitly
clear that those reliefs which can be had in
Column 3 of Schedule II before the authority
mentioned in Column 4 cannot be entertained
by a civil court. Relevant paragraph 7 is
extracted here-in-below:-

"7. Thus the section is explicitly
clear that those cause of action in respect of
which any proceedings or suit can be
specified by the relief provided under the said
Act cannot be taken cognizance of by a civil
court. It further makes it clear that those
reliefs which can be had in Column 3 of
Schedule II before the authority mentioned in
Column 4 cannot be entertained by a civil
court."

17. Now the question arises whether
non challenge to unregistered Power of
Attorney, on the basis of which the sale
1 All. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Arti Devi & Ors.
175
deed was executed by the defendant no.1 in
favour of the defendants no.2 to 6, could
have been a ground to hold that the suit is
not maintainable. The execution of the
alleged unregistered Power of Attorney has
been denied by the plaintiff-respondent and
it has been found forged by the courts
below, on the basis of which the registered
sale deed has been executed by the
defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2
to 6, whereas no title or power could have
been transferred and conferred on the basis
of said unregistered Power of Attorney.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Rajni Tandon Versus Dulal
Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar and another
(Supra), has held that in cases where the
person signing the document cannot present
the document before the registration officer
and gives a power of attorney to another to
present the document, the provisions of
Section 33 get attracted and it is only in
such a case that the said Power of Attorney
has to be necessarily executed and
authenticated in the manner provided under
Section 33(1)(a) of the Act. However this
case is not of any assistance to the
appellants because the case of plaintiffrespondent is not attracted by Section
33(1)(a) of the Act. The sale deed was
challenged on the ground that the sale deed
has been executed on the basis of
fraudulent unregistered Power of Attorney,
which has not been executed by the
defendant-respondent and it has been
proved. In view of latest judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shakeel Ahmed Versus Syed Akhlaq
Hussain (Supra), in which the suit was
filed for possession and mesne profits on
the basis of Power of Attorney and decree
for possession alongwith mesne profits was
granted. On being challenged the findings
were confirmed by the High Court.
However the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that no right, title or interest can be
transferred with respect to immovable
properties on the basis of an unregistered
agreement to sell or on the basis of an
unregistered Power of Attorney. Thus even
if he who signs the deed could have
presented the same, he could not have
transferred the title with respect to
immovable properties on the basis of
unregistered Power of Attorney, which has
been found fraudulent, so it cannot be said
that the suit was not maintainable and non
challenge to same would not vitiate the
impugned judgment and decrees as in view
of the grounds raised it has been
considered. There is no illegality or error in
it.

19. In view of above, the courts below
have passed the impugned judgment and
decrees in accordance with law, which does
not call for any interference by this court as
no substantial question of law arises in this
appeal. The appeal has been filed on
baseless and misconceived grounds.

20.
The
Second
Appeal
is,
accordingly, dismissed at the admission
stage. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 175
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1780 of 2024
With other connected cases

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Arti Devi & Ors. ...Respondents