Holding

A suit for cancellation of sale deeds concerning agricultural land can be entertained only by the Revenue Court under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction over such matters.

Summary

Kamla Prasad filed a suit in a civil court seeking cancellation of sale deeds alleging they were executed under intoxication and that he was not the sole owner of the land, which was co‑shared with other parties whose names were not entered in the revenue records. The trial court held it had jurisdiction over abadi land but not over agricultural land, which it said fell under the revenue court's jurisdiction under Section 299B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; the appellate court affirmed this view. The High Court reversed, holding the suit maintainable before the civil court. On appeal, the Supreme Court restored the lower courts' orders, ruling that only the revenue court can entertain suits concerning agricultural land and that the civil court lacks jurisdiction in such matters, while confirming the civil court's jurisdiction over abadi land. The appeal was allowed and the High Court order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for cancellation of sale deeds concerning agricultural land.
Whether the revenue court alone has jurisdiction over disputes relating to agricultural land under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Whether the civil court can decide the legality of entries and deletions in the Record of Rights for agricultural land.

Legislation cited

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 229B, s. 299B

Subjects

jurisdictioncivil courtrevenue courtagricultural landabadi landdeclaratory suitsale deed cancellationland reformsZamindari Abolition Act

Judgment

KAMLA PRASAD AND ORS. A
v.
SRI KRISHNA KANT PATHAK AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 9, 2007

[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ .] B

Jurisdiction-Jurisdiction of Civil Court vis-a-vis Revenue Court-Suit
for declaration of sale deeds as null and void-In respect of agricultural as
well abadi lands-Before Civil Court-Right, title and interest of the co- C
sharers of the vendor and entries of names in Revenue Record required to
be decided-Trial and Appellate Courts holding that Civil Court had
jurisdiction to decide the case only to the extent of Abadi land-Jn Writ
Petition, High Court held the suit maintainable before Civil Court-On
appeal, held: In the facts of the case, in respect of agricultural land Revenue
Court alone had jurisdiction to decide the case and not the civil court-UP. D
Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950-s. 299B.

Respondent No. I - Plaintiff filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale
deeds executed by him in favour of the contesting respondents and appellant-
defendant on the ground that the same were illegal and null and void as they
were not executed with his free will and on his own accord but under E
intoxication; that he being co-sharer of the property with respondent Nos. 10
to 12 (though their names not entered in Revenue Records), he alone had no
right, title or interest to sell the property. Defendants questioned the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Trial Court held that suit was cognizable by
the Civil Court so far as abadi land was concerned and in respect of F
agricultural land jurisdiction vested with the Revenue Court under Section
299B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Appellate
Court confirmed the order of the trial court. Respondent No. I-Plaintiff filed
a Writ Petition which was allowed by High Court holding that the suit was
maintainable before Civil Court. Hence the present appeal.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court

" HELD: I. In the light of the facts of the case, the Courts below were
wholly right in reaching the conclusion that such a suit could be entertained
only by a Revenue Court and Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The High Court
395 I-I
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A by reversing those orders had committed an error of law and of jurisdiction
which deserves interference by this Court. !Para 1611401-DI
4
2. So far as abadi land is concerned, the trial Court held that Civil Court
had jurisdiction and the said decision has become final. But as far as
agricultural land is concerned, the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court
B were right in coming to the conclusion that only Revenue Court could have
entertained the suit on two grounds. Firstly, the case of the plaintiff himself
in the plaint was that he was not the sole owner of the property and defendant
Nos. IO to 12 who were proforma defendants, had also right, title and interest
therein. He had also stated in the plaint that though in the Revenue Record, ).
only his name had appeared but defendant Nos. 10 to 12 have also right in the
c property. Both the Courts below were right in holding that such a question
can be decided by a Revenue Court in a suit instituted under Section 229-B
ofZamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. [Para 1211399-E-GI

3. Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that legality or
D 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 Coun
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. [Para 1311400-DI

E Shri Ram and Anr. v. !st Addi. Distt. Judge and Ors., (2001 I 3 SCC 24,
relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3659 of2003.
Si
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 10.8.200 I of the High Court
F of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 386 of 1990.

Shobha Dixit, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sanjay Misra for the Appellants.

Manoj K. Mishra, Anju, Sheela, Amit Yadav, D.N. Dubey, Kamlendra
Mishra and Rachana Srivastava for the Respondents.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C.K. THAKKER, J. I. This appeal is filed by the appellant-original
defendant Nos. 1to6 against an order dated August 10, 2001, passed by the
,f) .
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
H 386of1990.
KAMLA PRASAD v. SRl KRISHNA KANT PATHAK [THAKKER, J.] 397

2. One Kishna Kant Pathak-respondent No. I herein, filed a suit against A
)<
the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 12 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaunpur
being Suit No. 110 of 1984. It was averred in the suit that an agreement to
sell dated June 18, 198 I entered into between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.
I to 6, sale deed dated November 7, 1981 executed in their favour and another
sale deed, dated December 16, 1981 executed by the plaintiff in favour of
defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were illegal, without authority of law and null and void. B
A prayer was, therefore, made to cancel those documents. It was stated by
the plaintiff in the plaint that he and defendant Nos. I 0 to I 2 were co-
bhoomidars of the disputed land and as such defendant Nos. I 0 to 12 had also
right in the disputed property. The names of defendant Nos. I0 to 12, however,
were not entered in the Revenue Record anp only the name of plaintiff was C
recorded. But in view of shares of defendant Nos. I 0 to 12, plaintiff alone had
no right, title or interest to sell the property.

3. It was also alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff that he had developed
bad habits and defendant Nos. I to 9 took undue advantage of the said
situation. The plaintiff was under intoxication and the documents got executed D
by contesting defendants. The plaintiff did not remember the execution of the
sale deed and its presentation before the Sub-Registrar, Kerakat. He did not
execute the sale deeds with his freewill and on his own accord. Nothing was
paid to him. He was given tablets by defendant Nos. I to 9 and he became
unconscious. At the time of execution of sale deed, the plaintiff was E
unconscious and was unable to understand judgment of his act. Defendant
Nos. I to 9 became'vendees on the basis of sale deeds but they were liable
to be cancelled in view of the circumstances under which the documents were
executed by the plaintiff.

4. The contesiing defendants raised several contentions including the p
contention as to the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain, deal with and
decide the suit. It Was contended that in respect of cancellation of deeds as
regards agricultural: land, the suit was not entertainable by a Civil Court as
only Court which had Jurisdiction was Revenue Court under the provisions
of the U.P. Zamind~ri Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act"). It was prayed by the defendants to treat the issue G
as to jurisdiction of the Court as preliminary issue and decide it.
·.1
5. The Trial C~~rt, after considering the contentions of the parties, held
that the suit was co~nizable by the Civil Com t so far as abadi land was
concerned. It had, hot·ever, no jurisdiction in respect of agricultural land and
j H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A to that extent, the preliminary objection raised by the contesting defendants
was well-founded and was upheld.

6. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred an appeal being Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal No. 242 of 1986. The appeal came up for hearing before the Ill
Additional District Judge, Jaunpur who confirmed the order passed by the
B Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Dealing with submission of the parties,
the Appellate Court observed that the Trial Court was right in holding that
it had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to validity of sale-deeds in
respect of agricultural land, particularly in view of the case put forward by
the plaintiff in the plaint that over and above the plaintiff, defendant Nos. I 0
C to 12 had also share therein. Such a suit, according to ,he Appellate Court
could be entertained only by Revenue Court. According to the Appellate
Court, how much share belongs to plaintiff in ~te disputed land was a
question which could be determined only by Revenue Court. He was, therefore,
obliged to file suit for ·declaration in Revenue Court under Section 2298 of
the Act.
D
7. The Appellate Court also observed that the record showed that
muta•ion 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
E presumed that plaintiff was not in possession over the disputed land, the
Appellate Court observed that the 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. Accordingly, the
appeal was dismissed.
F 8. The plaintiff challenged the said order by filing a writ petition in the
High Court which was allowed by holding that since the prayer of the plaintiff
in the plaint was for cancellation of sale deed and declaration that they were
void, only Civil Court had jurisdiction which could decide such question. The
suit was, accordingly, held maintainable before Civil Court and the orders
G passed by both the Courts v1ere set aside.
9. The aggrieved defendants have approached this Court. We have
heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants-defendants contended that
H the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court were right in holding that Civil
)
!-

KAMLA PRASAD v. SRI KRISHNA KANT PATHAK [THAKKER, J.] 399

> Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to ownership of agricultural A
land and the only Court which could decide such question is Revenue Court
and the High Court had committed an error in reversing the said orders which
deserve interference by this Court. It was submitted that so far as abadi land
is concerned, the Court was right that it could be decided by Civil Court but
in respect of agricultural land, Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Plaintiff was
bound to approach Revenue Court under the provisions of the Act. It was
B
also submitted that the High Court had committed an error of law and of
jurisdiction in not considering the fact that the case of the plaintiff in the
__., plaint itself was that over and above plaintiff, defendant Nos. 10 to 12 had
also right in the agricultural land. Such a question can be decided only by
Revenue Court in a suit filed under Section 229B of the Act. It was also c
submitted that when the name of the plaintiff was deleted and of the purchasers
entered in Revenue Records, Revenue Court alone could consider the grievance
of the plaintiff. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be
allowed by setting aside the order passed by the High Court and restoring
the orders of the Courts below.
D
11. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the other hand,
~
supported the order of the High Court and contended that it rightly decided
__ ,
that Civil Court has jurisdiction and the case deserves to be decided on merits
by dismissing the appeal.
;

12. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, in our opinion, E
.f
the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be
accepted. So far as abadi land is concerned, the trial Court held that Civil
Court had jurisdiction and the said decision has become final. But as far as
agricultural land is concerned, in our opinion, the Trial Court as well as
i Appellate Court were right in coming to the conclusion that only Revenue F
Court could have entertained the suit on two grounds. Firstly, the case of the
plaintiff himself in the plaint was that he was not the sole owner of the
property and defendant Nos. IO to n who were proforma defendants, had
also right, title and interest therein. He had also stated· in the plaint that
tbough in the Revenue Record, only his name had appeared but defendant
Nos. I 0 to 12 have also right in the property. In our opinion, both the Courts G
below were right in holding that such a question can be decided by a
·t Revenue Court in a suit instituted under Section 229B of the Act. The said
section reads thus:

229B. Declaratory suit by person claiming to be an asami of a
H
1

~

400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 2 S.C.R.

A holding or part thereof-{!) Any person claiming to be an asami of -;-
a holding or any part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any
other person, may sue the landholder for a declaration of his rights
as asami in such holding or part, as the case may be.

(2) In any suit under sub-section (l) any other person claiming to hold
B as asami under the landholder shall be impleaded as defendant.

(3) The provisions of sub-sections (I) and(~) shall mutatis mutandis
apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a bhumidhar, with the
amendment that for the word 'landholder' the words "the State .';-

Government and the Gaon Sabha" are substituted therein.
c
13. On second question also, in our view, 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
D finding whether such an action was in accordance with law or not and it
cannot be decided by a Civil Court.
),_
,.
_14. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant rightly
relied upon a decision of this Court in Shri Ram & Anr. v. /st Addi. Distt.
Judge & Ors., [2001] 3 SCC 24. In Shri Ram, A, the original owner of the land ~
E sold it to B by a registered sale deed and also delivered possession and the
't'"
name of the purchaser was entered into Revenue Records after mutation.
According to the plaintiff, sale deed was forged and was liable to be £ancelled.
In the light of the above fact, this Court held that it was only a Civil Court
which could entertain, try and decide.such suit. The Court, after considering
F relevant case law on the point, 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
a
being that in such 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.
G
The Court, however, proceeded to observe:
t-
"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
H .,

,
fl'
(( AMLA PRASAD v. SRI KRISHNA KANT PATHAK [THAKKER. J.] 401
the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, A
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".

15. The instant case is covered by the above observations. The lower
Appellate Court has expressly stated that the name of the plaintiff had been B
deleted from Record of Rights and the names of purchasers had been entered.
The said fact had been brought on record by the contesting defendants and
. it was stated that the plaintiff himself appeared as a witness before the
Mutation Court, admitted execution of the sale deed, receipt of sale
consideration and the factum of putting vendees into possession of the C
property purchased by them. It was also stated that the records revealed that
the names of contesting defendants had been mutated into Record of Rights
and the name of plaintiff was deleted.

16. In the light of the above facts, in our opinion, the Courts below were
wholly right in reaching the conclusion that such a suit could be entertained D
only by a Revenue Court and Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The High Court
by reversing those orders had committed an error of law and of jurisdiction
which deserves interference by this Court.
-· 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and
is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and E
that of the Courts below is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.