Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (8) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 - 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. In the instant case, since the plaintiff claims title under sal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .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 disputed property through four registered sale deeds all dated 15.06.2006 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Therefore, the plaintiff filed original suit No.55 of 2008 in the court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gautam Budh Nagar, for cancellation of the said sale deed and also for injunction against the first defendant and the second defendant restraining them from interfering with its possession and use of the property. 4. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the civil court is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. The provisions of a law which seek to oust the jurisdiction of civil court need to be strictly construed. Section 331 of the Act has been the subject of series of pronouncements of the High Court as to the circumstances and the nature of the suits in which its exclusionary effect operates. Distinction was sought to be drawn between the class of cases where the binding effect of a deed had had to be got rid of by an appropriate adjudication on the one hand and the class of cases in which a transaction could be said to be void in law where what the law holds to be void, there is nothing to cancel or set aside on t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd 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 tenure holder 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... endant. 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 recorded tenure holder. In the plaint, the plaintiff himself had stated that he was not the sole owner of the property and defendants 10 to 12 who were pro-forma defendants had also right, title and interest therein. He had also stated that though his name had appeared in the revenue record, defendants 10 to 12 also had a right in the property. In this factual background, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates