The applicants are assailing the orders passed by the courts below arising from Original Suit No. 717 of 2012 (Kashi Prasad and another vs. Sanjay Sharma and others) whereby, the issue pertaining to jurisdiction was decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the applicant/defendants holding that the civil court would have jurisdiction and not the revenue court. The facts in brief is that plot no. 187 ad-measuring 1.67/8 acres situated in village Mahimapur, District Varanasi, was in the joint tenure holder of the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/respondents, each having 50% share in the property. Both plaintiff/respondent, as well as, defendant/respondents were entered as joint tenure holder in the revenue records.
Village Mahimapur was brought under consolidation proceedings, upon conclusion of the proceedings, the competent authority i.e. Consolidation Officer recorded plaintiff/respondent, and, defendant/respondents as joint tenure holders each having 50% share, which attained finality upon publication of notification on 1 September 1988 under Section 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act 19531. The applicants purchased the plot in dispute from the defendant/respondents, namely Ghurey Lal and Krishna Prasad through a registered sale deed dated 8 August 1996 to the extent of their share. The competent authority, thereafter on 1 October 1996 mutated the name of the applicants in the revenue record by expunging the name of the vendors viz Ghurey Lal and Krishna Prasad. The applicants since then are in possession of the suit property to the extent of their shares.
After a lapse of 16 years, the plaintiff/respondent instituted the present suit on 15 May 2012 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi to declare the sale-deed dated 8 August 1996, null and void. The applicants contested by filing written statement, interalia, raising the plea of maintainability of the suit before the civil court in view of Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 19502. Accordingly, issue no. 10 was framed by the trial court. The issue was decided in the negative holding that the suit was not barred by Section 331 and would be maintainable before the civil court. Aggrieved, the applicants preferred a revision before the District Judge, Varanasi, the revisional court relying upon the documents filed by the plaintiff/respondent being Akar Patra-23, issued during consolidation proceeding and order dated 17 May 2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer on an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent purporting to be under Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation Rules 1954, whereby, the names of the defendant/respondents Ghurey Lal and Krishna Prasad was ordered to be expunged from the revenue records and the names of plaintiff/respondents were ordered to be entered. The revisional court affirmed the order of the trial court.
Submission of the learned Senior Counsel is that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer to expunge the name of predecessor in interest of the applicants under Rule 109 was erroneous since the competent revenue authority under the Land Revenue Act 1901, had directed to record the name of the applicants in the revenue record, further, it is sought to be urged that the Court below had to decide the question of jurisdiction which was to be determined on the assertions made in the plaint and not on the documents that were filed by the plaintiff/respondents at the revisional stage. The land in question admittedly is an agricultural land and the suit was instituted for declaring the sale-deed null and void. But primarily the question of declaration of tenancy right in respect of the share of the applicant is involved, which therefore, in view of Section 331 can be granted by the revenue court alone.
The trial court held that the revenue court would have jurisdiction to declare a registered document null and void, the matter pertaining to entries of the name of Ghurey Lal and Krishna Prasad recorded in revenue record in respect of the suit property has not been decided finally, therefore, the suit before the civil court would be maintainable.
The revisional court noted in the impugned order that the disputed land was purchased in the name of Hubraji and during consolidation proceedings the land came to be recorded in her name, however, upon her demise the name of legal heirs (plaintiff/respondents) was entered in the revenue record but, the name of Ghurey Lal and Krishna Prasad was also entered as co-owners due to some error which was subsequently corrected by Consolidation Officer by order dated 17 May 2006. The legal heirs of Hubraji instituted the suit for declaration to declare the sale deed null and void for the reason that as long as the sale-deed would exist the name of the applicants entered in the revenue record cannot be corrected. The revisional court opined that declaration of right and title of Hubraji and thereafter, her legal heirs is not involved in the present suit. After consolidation proceedings the names of Ghurey Lal and Krishna Prasad was directed to be expunged, therefore, the plaintiff/respondents are not required to seek declaration of their right and title.
Per Contra, Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiffs would submit that the impugned orders are lawful and legal, in the facts of the case declaration of title primarily is not involved, the main purpose is to get the sale-deed declared void.
Rival submissions fall for consideration.
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 19633 makes specific provision for cancellation of void, as well as, voidable instrument. Suits for cancellation of such documents being of civil nature are cognizable by a civil court and even otherwise suits claiming relief provided under Specific Relief Act are entertainable only by a civil court and no revenue court or any other court can entertain such a suit including for cancellation of an instrument or document.
Thus, one who has reasonable apprehension that any instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury can approach a competent court of law to get it cancelled. Sub-section (2) of Section 31 casts a mandatory duty upon the court passing a decree to send a copy of the same to the registering officer, who is enjoined by law to make a note on the copy of such document regarding the order of its cancellation passed by a particular court and after such an endorsement is made, the document becomes legally ineffective and no benefit of the same can be derived by any one. If a certified copy of such a document is issued it would obviously contain the note regarding its cancellation by a court of law.
So far as voidable documents like those obtained by practising coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence etc., are concerned, their legal effect cannot be put to an end without its cancellation. But a void document is not required to be cancelled necessarily. Its legal effect if any can be put to an end to by declaring it to be void and granting some other relief instead of cancelling it. Once it is held to be void it can be ignored by any court or authority being of no legal effect or consequence.
There is presumption of due registration of a document and correctness of the facts mentioned in the same, but the said presumption is not conclusive and can be dislodged.
On the finding that a particular instrument or document was void because of any reason, it will be of no legal consequence and binding on any one without even its cancellation. But existence of such a document or instrument, more particularly for a substantial period may cause injury to the person whose right are affected by it and place his right and title over any property in doubt and dispute and may create complications and give rise to unnecessary litigations.
Reasonable apprehension of serious injury from a void document provides a cause of action to a person to approach the competent court of law, that is, civil court for its cancellation.
But this entitlement goes into background or becomes restricted if because of certain statutory constraints, restraints and prescription, some other relief can be claimed or is to be granted by adjudging the document or instrument void and thereby declaring it to be legally ineffective and of no consequence.
Such a situation arises when more than one reliefs are claimed in any action pertaining to agricultural land. If the relief claimed or the real and the main relief is one which is mentioned in Schedule II to Act 1950, the same can be granted by the revenue court only and the jurisdiction of civil court to grant such a relief or reliefs is ousted by Section 331 of the said Act.
The law relating to right, title and interest over the agricultural land is contained in Act 1950, which is a complete Code by itself.
The said Act being special Act, its provisions would prevail over the general law. The jurisdiction of civil court is ousted if the relief can be granted by the special court conferred with jurisdiction to grant such reliefs. Section 331 which specifically ousts the jurisdiction of other courts in respect of all suits, applications etc., enumerated in Schedule II, the main emphasis is on the words 'cause of action" and "any relief".
Section 331 of the Act which specifically ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of suits etc., enumerated in Schedule II makes the phrase 'cause of action' as pivotal point for determining the jurisdiction of civil or revenue court.
It is the real 'cause of action' which determines the jurisdiction of the court to entertain particular action, notwithstanding, the language used in the plaint or the relief claimed. The strength on which the Plaintiff comes to the court does not depend upon the defence or relief claimed which could determine the forum for the entertainment of claim and grant of relief. It is the pith and substance which is to be seen and not the language used which may even have been so used to oust the jurisdiction of a particular court.
The expression 'any relief' used in Section 331 is of too wide import and would not only mean the relief claimed but would also include any relief arising out of the cause of action which led the Plaintiff to invoke the jurisdiction of a court of law. The word 'relief' is not part of cause of action nor the same is related to the defence set up in the case. The relief is a remedy which the court grants from the facts asserted and proved in an action.
If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted.
In Ram Padarath and others vs. Second Additional District Judge and others4 upon considering earlier judgments this Court held (para 41):
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 his relief permissible under law except when a declaration of right or status of 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 revenue court in respect of seeking relief for cancellation of a void document which made him to 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.
In Sri Ram vs. Ist ADJ5 Surpeme Court held that where a recorded tenure holder having a title and in possession of property files a suit in Civil Court for cancellation of sale deed obtained by fraud or impersonation could not be directed to institute such suit for declaration in Revenue Court, the reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land.
Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Kamla Prasad and others vs. Kishna Kant Pathak and others6. In the facts of that case plaintiff instituted a suit before civil court seeking cancellation of sale deeds executed by him in favour of the defendant purchasers. The Court, on the question of jurisdiction held that Revenue Court would have jurisdiction for the reason that mutation on the basis of the impugned sale deed had been effected by the Revenue Authority, name of the plaintiff had been deleted from revenue records and the names of contesting defendants had already been entered in his place. Observing that "title follows possession" and it would be presumed that the plaintiff was not in possession over the disputed land. Question of possession of agricultural land could be decided only by Revenue Court and civil court had no jurisdiction to give any finding on possession over the agricultural land.
"Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that legality or otherwise of insertion of names of purchasers in Record of Rights and deletion of name of the plaintiff from such record can only be decided by Revenue Court since the names of the purchasers had already been entered into. Only Revenue Court can record a finding whether such an action was in accordance with law or not and it cannot be decided by a Civil Court."
In the facts of the case in hand it is not being disputed that the parties were recorded in the revenue record during consolidation proceedings. Upon close of consolidation proceedings in terms of Section 52 of Act, 1953, any proceedings in view of sub-section (2) of Section 52, if not pending, then finality would be attached to the findings recorded during consolidation proceedings. A finding recorded by a consolidation court cannot be questioned either before the civil court or revenue court in view of Section 49. Only clerical corrections are permissible, names recorded in revenue record, therefore, could not have been directed to be deleted under Rule 109, such an order is without jurisdiction. The revenue record attaining finality during consolidation proceedings, therefore, could not be corrected by the revenue authorities under Land Revenue Act, as long as, the sale deed subsists and is not declared void by the competent court.
It is not being disputed that the applicants are recorded in the revenue record along with the respondent/plaintiffs, therefore, the question of title or seeking a declaration is primarily not involved in the facts of the present case. The respondent/plaintiffs are aggrieved for the reason that, as long as, the void sale deed is not set aside by the competent court, the name of the applicants in the revenue record would continue.
In Ram Awalamb and others vs. Jata Shanker and others7, the Full Bench observed as follows:
A document which the Plaintiff shows also purports to have been transferred by a person not authorized to do so can be cancelled through court to the extent of the Plaintiff's share and after a decree has been passed in his favour, information of the same has to be sent to Registration Department for making a note in their register.........In short the relief for declaration or partition cannot be said to be effective alternate relief for cancellation of sale-deed in respect of whole holding or part of holding.
The Full Bench did not make any distinction in this behalf in respect of void or voidable sale deeds and according to its observation, if cause of action for cancellation of a deed arises, the effective relief of cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act would be in civil court and a suit in revenue court will not be an effective substitute.
For the reasons and law stated herein above, I am of the view that the courts below were justified in holding that the civil court would have jurisdiction in matter.
The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
No cost.
Order Date :- 16.2.2016 S.Prakash