1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission of Second Appeal and perused the records.
2. In the original suit no. 825/2005 (Smt. Mulka Devi & Ors. v. Ramagya Yadav & Ors.) plaint's averment was that Mahavir had fraudulently pasted his photograph and posed himself as Mahadev before the Sub-Registrar and executed disputed sale-deeds dated 11.04.1988 and 21.05.1988 on behalf of Mahadev in favour of defendant no.-1 Ramagya Yadav, which was without consideration and liable to be declared void; and defendants be restrained from interfering in possession of plaintiffs over disputed property.
3. The trial court had accepted written statement, framed issues, accepted the adduced evidences and thereafter passed judgement dated 11.09.2013, by which plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
4. The judgement of the trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs through Civil Appeal No. 211/2013 (Kharbhan Yadav & Ors. v. Ramagya Yadav). The first appellate court had framed some points of determination and decided them against plaintiffs-appellants holding that plaintiffs' suit was time barred and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter as it related to ownership of disputed agricultural property and the jurisdiction of the Court is barred under Section-331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. On the basis of these findings, the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.-1, Varanasi, had dismissed the first appeal by his judgement dated 15.10.2015.
5. Aggrieved by the judgements of trial court as well as first appellate court, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs in original suit.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants contended that when there was evidence that Mahadev had fraudulently pasted his photograph in place of Mahadev and impersonated him at the time of execution of sale-deeds dated 11.04.1988 and 21.05.1988, then original suit should have been decreed for cancellation of those sale-deeds.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contention of the appellants' side and contended that the first appellate court had rightly given findings that original suit was time barred because plaintiffs-appellants had knowledge of disputed sale-deeds during mutation proceedings in the year 1996, but they had filed suit in the year 2006, which is much beyond lapse of period of limitation. He also contended that since the dispute relates to actual relief tofor declaration of the title of agricultural property, and after contesting the name of defendants-respondents had been muted in Revenue Record then the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. He contended that in any case plaintiffs may get proper remedy by filing a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, for declaration of their rights over the disputed land. Therefore, appeal should be dismissed in limine.
8. A perusal of records and memo of revision reveal that the substantial questions of law framed by the appellants side in memo of appeal, are in fact not substantial question of law. The first appellate court had decided the first appeal on the points of law relating to the suit being barred by limitation and the Civil Court having no jurisdiction to decide the real matter in dispute.
9. So far as the first contention of learned counsel for the respondents relating to claim of plaintiffs being time barred is concerned, from perusal of records, it is found unacceptable. Plaintiffs-appellants have been contesting regarding their rights over the disputed land initially in Revenue Court in proceedings of mutation. After conclusion of mutation proceedings they disclosed these facts in plaint and claimed the benefits of Section-14 of Limitation Act, which was rightly granted to them by trial court. Although the first appellate court had decided these points on basis of knowledge of appellants regarding disputed sale-deeds in mutation proceedings, but the said court had failed to appreciate the facts that after the death of Mahadev, the name of plaintiff no.-1 Smt. Mulka Devi was recorded from the year 1990 to 2006 on the disputed land and thereafter the mutation proceedings continued till the year 2006, which were contested by the plaintiffs-appellants. Since the name of plaintiffs were recorded on disputed land till the year 2006 in the revenue record therefore the real cause of action for declaration of their rights over the disputed agricultural land, which is pith and substance of the matter in dispute, arose in the year 2006. Therefore on these points of limitation the findings of first appellate court is found erroneous and is, hereby, set aside.
10. So far the second point relating to jurisdiction is concerned, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents are acceptable as held earlier. The pith and substance of the matter of real disputes between the parties relates to declaration of ownership right of plaintiffs-appellants over disputed agricultural land, which have now been recorded in the name of defendants-respondents. Such questions can be decided by the Revenue Court only. In such a matter of main relief is declaration of title of disputed agricultural land and ancillary relief is that of cancellation of sale-deeds. Since the jurisdiction to grant main relief vests in revenue court, therefore an ancillary relief relating to declaration of disputed sale-deeds being ineffective and void can also be decided by the Revenue Court, which would have jurisdiction to determine that, on the basis of evidences adduced before it, whether the disputed sale-deeds dated 11.04.1088 and 21.05.1988 are liable to be declared ineffective or not, and whether the plaintiffs-appellants can be declared title holder of disputed land either on basis of registered sale-deeds dated 11.02.1988 or the plaintiffs-appellants being successor in interest and legal heirs of Mahadev. Therefore the findings of first appellate court regarding the suit being barred by Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and the Civil Court having no jurisdiction is found correct.
11. In this regard I am in an agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the appellants, which is also supported by the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Sri Ram and another Versus First Additional District Judge and others (2001 All CJ 497) and Kamla Prasad and others Versus Sri Sri Krishna Kant Patha and others (2007 All. C.J. 1275), that plaintiffs-appellants will have right to seek the remedy relating to real relief sought by them in revenue court by filing a suit for declaration in accordance with law.
12. Since the suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable as barred by aforesaid legal provisions, and there appears no other substantial question of law, therefore, the Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 07.01.2016.
Vinod