9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent-first defendant, and for injunction restraining them from interfering with its possession of the property was maintainable? 3. The plaintiff is a private limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It had purchased from the first defendant certain properties (for short 'the disputed property') in Village Yakootpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar under five sale deeds, all dated 17.10.1998. The plaintiff submitted an application in the office of the Tehsildar for having its name entered in the record in respect of the disputed property. During the pendency of these proceedings, it came to the knowledge of the officials of the plaintiff that the first defendant had illegally sold the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court in Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 207 has drawn a distinction between the suits cognizable by the civil court and the cases where Revenue Court has exclusive jurisdiction. It was also held that the statutory provisions ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court need to be strictly construed. It was held thus: "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 ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. 8. A similar question in relation to the maintainability of the suit was considered by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Padarath & Ors. v. Second ADDL D.J., Sultanpur & Ors., (1989) RD 21 (All)(FB) and it was held thus:" We are of the view that the case of Indra Dev v. Smt. 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aration of title, he has to approach the Revenue Court. 10. 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. 11. In the judgment of this Court in Kamla Prasad & Ors. v. Kishna Kant Pathak & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 213, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant-second defendant, the plaintiff was the co-owner and not a recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
