NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL & ORS.versusM/S. NUPUR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

868                       [2019]
               SUPREME COURT     10 S.C.R. 868
                              REPORTS                       [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A                   NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL & ORS.
                                         v.
            M/s. NUPUR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.
                                    AND ANR.
B                        (Civil Appeal No. 5979 of 2019)
                                  JULY 31, 2019
              [N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
             U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 –
C     s. 331 – First respondent-plaintiff purchased disputed property from
      the second respondent-first defendant under five sale deeds, all
      dated 17.10.1998 – Plaintiff found that first defendant had illegally
      sold the disputed property through four registered sale deed all
      dated 15.06.2006 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 – Suit filed by
      plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.06.2006 and
D
      also for injunction restraining defendants from interfering with its
      possession – Appellant-defendant No.2 questioned the
      maintainability of the suit having regard to s.331 of the Act – Civil
      Court held the suit maintainable – Revision petition by the defendant
      No.2 was also dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: The
E     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 was for cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated
      15.06.2006 – s. 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
F
      tenure holder is not under cloud – There is no bar u/s.331 of the
      Act for the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court and the suit filed by
      it was maintainable.
            Dismissing the appeals, the Court
G           HELD : 1. In the instant case, the plaintiff has pleaded that
      it had purchased the disputed property under five sale deeds all
      dated 17.10.1998 from the first defendant. The suit was filed for
      cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.06.2006 on the ground of


H
                                        868
   NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL v. M/S NUPUR HOUSING                            869
             DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.

fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff had not sought any relief     A
with respect to its own right and title as a tenure holder or
declaration of its title or status. As stated above, the only relief
sought in the suit filed was for cancellation of the alleged sale
deed dated 15.06.2006. This Court is of the view that Section
331 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
                                                                         B
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. [Para 7] [872-B-D]                                    C
      2. 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.       D
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.
[Para 10] [873-D-E]
      Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors. (1990) 1
      SCC 207 – relied on.                                               E
      Ram Padarath & Ors. v. Second ADDL D.J., Sultanpur
      & Ors. (1989) RD 21 (All)(FB) – approved.
      Shri Ram & Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge & Ors. (2001)
      3 SCC 24 : [2001] 1 SCR 984 – referred to.
                                                                         F
      Kamla Prasad & Ors. v. Kishna Kant Pathak & Ors.
      (2007) 4 SCC 213 : [2007] 2 SCR 395 – inapplicable.
                       Case Law Reference
(1990) 1 SCC 207                relied on               Para 6
[2001] 1 SCR 984                referred to             Para 9           G

[2007] 2 SCR 395                inapplicable            Para 11



                                                                         H
870             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5979
      of 2019.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2014 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision Defective No. 128 of 2014.
            With
B
            Civil Appeal No. 5980 of 2019.
            H. C. Kharbanda, Jabar Singh, T. N. Saxena, Garvesh Kabra,
      Advs. for the Appellants.
           Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Shariq, Aman Rastogi, Syed Abdul
C     Haseeb, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5979 OF 2019
D           (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8352 of 2015
            1. Leave granted.
             2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit
      filed by the first respondent-plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed
E     dated 15.06.2006 against the appellant-second defendant and second
      respondent-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
F     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
G     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

H
      NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL v. M/S NUPUR HOUSING                                  871
       DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

and also for injunction against the first defendant and the second defendant      A
restraining them from interfering with its possession and use of the
property.
       4. The second defendant questioned the maintainability of the suit,
having regard to Section 331 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’). The Civil Court vide order               B
dated 22.05.2014 held that the suit was maintainable. The second
defendant challenged the said order before the Allahabad High Court.
After considering the matter, the High Court dismissed the revision petition
by its order dated 17.11.2014. The second defendant has called in
question the legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal.
                                                                                  C
       5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in
dispute that the disputed property is an agricultural land. The contention
of the learned counsel for the second defendant is that the suit in respect
of agricultural land is barred under Section 331 of the Act. Learned
senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the suit filed by the
plaintiff was only for cancellation of the sale deed and for injunction and       D
thus the bar contained in Section 331 of the Act is not attracted.
       6. This Court in Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors.1
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     E
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      F
         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          G
         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

1
    (1990) 1 SCC 207
                                                                                  H
872             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A            or set aside on the other. In the former case, it was held, a suit
             was cognisable by the civil court while in the latter, it was not, it
             being open to the statutory authority to take note of the legal
             incidents of what was non est.”
             7. In the instant case, the plaintiff has pleaded that it had purchased
B     the disputed property under five sale deeds all dated 17.10.1998 from
      the first defendant. The suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deed
      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. As stated above, the
      only relief sought in the suit filed was for cancellation of the alleged sale
C     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
D     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.,2 and it
      was held thus:-
E            “We are of the view that the case of Indra Dev v. Smt. Ram
             Piari,3 has been correctly decided and the said decision requires
             no consideration, while the Division Bench case, Ayodhya Prasad
             (Dr) v. Gangotri Prasad 4 is regarding the jurisdiction of
             consolidation authorities, but so far as it holds that suit in respect
F            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
G            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
      2
        (1989) RD 21 (All)(FB)
      3
        (1982) 8 ALR 517
      4
H       1981 AWC 469
      NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL v. M/S NUPUR HOUSING                                 873
       DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

         which made him to approach the court of law and in such case he         A
         can also claim ancillary relief even though the same can be granted
         by the revenue court.”
        9. This Court in Shri Ram & Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge &
Ors.,5 considered the question relating to maintainability of a suit by a
recorded tenure holder in possession for cancellation of the sale deed in        B
favour of the respondents executed by some imposters. After noticing
the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court, this
Court held that where recorded tenure holder, having a prima facie title
and in possession files suit in the Civil Court for cancellation of sale deed
having been obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation, it cannot
be directed to file a suit for declaration in the Revenue Court, reason          C
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. However, if the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of
title, he has to approach the Revenue Court.
       10. In the instant case, since the plaintiff claims title under sale      D
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        E
filed by it was maintainable.
       11. In the judgment of this Court in Kamla Prasad & Ors. v.
Kishna Kant Pathak & Ors.6, 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     F
he was not the sole owner of the property and defendants 10 to 12 who
were proforma 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, this Court held that such a question can be decided by the
Revenue Court in a suit instituted under Section 229-B of the Act. It            G
was also held that the legality or otherwise of the insertion of names of
purchasers in records of rights and deletion of the name of the plaintiff
from such record can only be tested by Revenue Court, since names of
5
    (2001) 3 SCC 24
6
    (2007) 4 SCC 213                                                             H
874                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2019] 10 S.C.R.


A     the purchasers had already been entered into the record. This judgment
      has no application to the facts of the present case.
            12. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly
      dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5980 OF 2019
B
            (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8528 of 2015
            13. Leave granted.
             14. The issue in this appeal is squarely covered by the above
      judgment. Hence, this appeal is also dismissed. There will be no order as
C     to costs.


      Ankit Gyan                                                Appeals dismissed.


D




E




F




G




H