1. This petition has been filed canvassing the validity of the judgment dated 24-1-1983 passed by the Revisional Court thereby allowing the revision and holding suit not maintainable in Civil Courts. As a necessary consequence, the judgment dated 22-8-82 passed by Munsif Havali Varanasi in O.S No. 141 of 1982 was reversed.
2. The facts may be stated in brevity and with appropriateness and they are that petitioner Kishori Prasad instituted a declaratory suit claiming that sale deed executed on 17-4-1981 was void document and the same be declared as void and communication be made to the Registrar Varanasi accordingly. The further relief claimed in the suit is for injunction and for possession. According to the plaint allegations, the land in dispute is a plot bearing No. 92/1 admeasuring 6 decimal situated in village Rohta, District Varanasi that one Hanuman arrayed as defendant No. 2 was Bhumidhar of the land in dispute: that the claim of the plaintiff was based on alleged sale deed dated 24-11-81 executed by Hanuman defendant No. 2; that Smt. Munni Devi defendant No. 1 and his two minor sons got a registered sale deed executed in their favour on 17-4-81 and obtained illegal possession of a portion, of the property during the pendency of proceeding under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C on 23-1-1982; that defendant No. 2 never executed any sale deed; that so called sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 is forged and fictitious document and it was induced by some one who personated himself to be defendant No. 2; that the plaintiff gained knowledge of sale deed on 30th Jan. 1982 and then cause of action arose for its cancellation. The defendant in the written statement repudiated the plaint allegations. The case taken in the written statement inter-alia was that they are in actual physical possession of the land in dispute; that the sale deed in question was executed by Hanuman defendant No. 2 who has also conceded this fact in his written statement filed in this case; that the defendant is a widowed lady and his two sons are minors and taking advantage of her widowed-hood, the plaintiff got a forged sale deed executed on 24-11-81 with the avowed intention of usurping her land and the sale deed is a forged paper; that the defendant No. 1 and his two minor sons are recorded tenure holders in the revenue record and that the suit is not cognizable by Civil Court and it necessarily entails declaration of the title. The trial Court framed issue No. 3 relating to jurisdiction and decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff. The quintessence of what has been held by the trial Court is that the suit for declaration of disputed sale deed dated 7-4-81 was maintainable in Civil Court. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner preferred a revision which culminated in being allowed holding that the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court and the same was cognizable by the Revenue Court. A review was filed by the petitioner which ended up in being dismissed vide judgment and order dated 14-3-1983.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit for declaration that the sale deed was null and void is maintainable in Civil Court notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was a recorded tenure holder and on this ground the judgment of the revisional Court holding that the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court, was liable to be set aside and the matter may be relegated to the Civil Court for adjudication. In aid of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on various decisions. Sri Aditya Narain, in opposition, contended that the defendants are recorded tenure holders and the plaintiff is not either executant of the sale deed or for matter of that a successor but happens to be a third party and the claim of the petitioner necessarily involves declaration of Bhumidhari rights. He further contended that the land was and continues to be recorded as Bhumidhari land and no declaration under S. 143 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R Act has been made and therefore, the suit lay in the Revenue Court as on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint, the document has the complexion of a void document.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the arguments made across the bar in all its pros and cons. Before embarking upon methodical analysis of the arguments made across the bar, Section 31 of the Specific Reliefs Act and Section 331(1) of the U.P.Z.A & L.R Act may usefully be excerpted below.
31. When cancellation may be ordered — (1) Any person against whom a written Instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such Instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the Instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1909 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered: and such officer shall note on the copy of the Instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
5. Section 331(1) of U.P.Z.A and L.R Act is also being quoted below:—
6. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no Court other than a Court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application).
(Provided that where a declaration has been made under S. 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II insofar as they related to suits, application or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof.).
7. The decisions are dime a dozen on the point whether the suit is maintainable in Civil Courts or it lies in Revenue Courts depending upon peculiar facts of each particular case. It is well settled by catena of decisions that a suit for cancellation of voidable document is maintainable only in Civil Courts unless of course, the document is cancelled or adjudged to be void. The effect of such document cannot be whittled down or taken away and has a binding effect. Without dilating on the point at length, it bears no repudiation that so far as voidable documents are concerned, it is only the Civil Courts which have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit for cancellation of voidable document.
8. In the galaxy of the above facts, the following question emerges for consideration and determination.
(1) Whether suit for cancellation of an Instrument, Instituted—
(a) By a recorded tenure holder.
(b) By executant of the instrument or his successor, and
(c) By a third person,
9. If in view of the plaint allegations, is considered to be void, lies in the Civil Court?
10. The ex-cathedra decision on the point which has been followed by the Apex Court in Shri Ram v. Addl. District Judge ((2001) 3 SCC 24 : AIR 2001 SC 1250) (infra) is the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Padarath v. 2nd Addl. District Judge Sultanpur, 1989 All WC 290 in which the relief of the cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction was claimed on the ground that the same was executed by some one personating for the plaintiff who still continued to be tenure holder in possession of the land in question. Paragraphs 19 and 36 being relevant, are quoted below:
“The forum for action in relation to void documents or instruments regarding agricultural land depends on the real cause of action with reference to the facts averred. Void documents necessarily do not require cancellation like voidable documents. A simple suit for cancellation of a document or instrument if the same casts cloud on one's right and title or is likely to cast cloud over it or affects the same adversely in respect of agricultural property, that is, ‘land’ poses no difficulty provided further it does not necessitate any declaration as to the claimant's right and title over the land i.e tenancy rights under the existing law. The difficulty arises when more than one reliefs are involved or claimed. It may be that one may get effective relief in presenti without cancellation of the document, but if a document remains un-cancelled for several years its existence may give rise to new trouble and litigation. The decree of a Court in which a document is declared to be void and is voided is obviously a decree in personam and the same undoubtedly binds a party but it will not be binding to each and every person as no note of such a decree can be made in the Sub-Registrar's register as provided in S. 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Such a document may mislead many and may give rise to various transactions and litigations.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
“In the case of void document said to have been executed by a plaintiff during his disability or by some one personating him or said to have been executed by his predecessor whom he succeeds, the relief of cancellation of the document is more appropriate relief for clearing the deck of title and burying deep any dispute or controversy on its basis in presenti or which may take place in future. The document after its cancellation would bear such an endorsement in Sub-Registrar's register and would be the basis for correction of any paper and revenue record including record of register. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act itself prescribes as to who can seek relief of cancellation. A third person cannot file a suit for cancellation of a void document. It in fact no decree for cancellation was needed and real and effective relief could be granted by the Revenue Court only, the Civil Court decree would even then be valid and not void if no objection to the same was taken before the trial Court. If such an objection was taken before the trial Court before framing of issues and objection continued to be taken before appellate and revisional Court and there has been failure of justice because of change of forum then the Civil Court decree could be said to be without jurisdiction.”
11. In Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad, (1990) 1 SCC 207 : AIR 1990 SC 540, the Apex Court considering the ratio flowing from a decision of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ram Padarath v. Second Addl. District Judge Sultanpur (1989 All WC 290) which had held that 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 declaration 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, reversed the view of the High Court and held that the present action would be covered by the pronouncement of the Full Bench. The question for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain appellant's suit…….for cancellation of certain sale deeds respecting agricultural lands, and for possession is barred by S. 331 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In this Case, the High Court had reversed the finding of the trial Court that the averments in the plant in substance amounted to a plea of nullity of the transactions and that the main relief in the suit was really one for possession grantable exclusively by the Revenue Court and directed return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The Apex Court was also seized of an identical question in Shri Ram v. Addl. District Judge, 2001 Rev Dec 241 : ((2001) 3 SCC 24 : AIR 2001 SC 1250). In this case, the Apex Court taking cue from the ratio flowing from the Full court decision of this Court in Ram Padarath v. 2nd Addl. District Judge Sultanpur 1989 Rev Dec 21, converged to the decision that where a recorded tenure holder having a prima facie title with possession, files a suit in Civil Court for cancellation of sale deed it does not require him to seek declaration of his title to the land. According to the ratio decidendi of the said decision, possession would be adjudged where a person not being a recorded tenure holder, seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the Civil Courts predicated upon fraud or impersonation.
“On analysis of the decisions cited above, we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure holder, having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the Civil Court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the Revenue Court-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. 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 the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, 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.”
12. In Jai Singh v. 2nd Addl. District Judge, 2002 (1) JCLR 95 (All) the writ petitioner challenged the decision of the Courts below which had taken a view that the suit for cancellation of sale deed as has been filed by the plaintiff will lie in the Civil Court if the plaintiff is a recorded in the revenue papers and documents sought to be cancelled in view of the pleadings appears to be void. The relevant observations are contained in paras 20 and 21 of the said decision which are quoted below for ready reference (Para 25 of All LJ):
“There is another reason for which the plaintiff should hot be precluded from going to the Civil Court to get the deed cancelled even though, it is not recorded in the revenue papers as in the event of cancellation of deed, further action about correction of the revenue entry will be just a sheer formality which can be said to be a follow up action and it will be just a ministerial act to be performed by revenue authorities. If the plaintiff after getting declaration in his favour by Civil Court visits revenue authority and brings this fact to his notice then the revenue authority after finding it out that the name of the defendant came to be recorded only on the basis of the deed in question which having been cancelled will have no option but to restore the entry. In this view no adjudication by revenue authorities of any kind will be required, if the main bone of contention between the parties i.e deed goes away from the hands of the defendants on account of its cancellation by Civil Court. The decision has been referred in support of the argument for abating the suit under the provisions of U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act…………………………… to my mind have not dealt the aspect that if there is no specific bar in maintaining the suit in the Civil Court for the relief for which the plaintiff has come i.e cancellation of the deed then irrespective of availability or the claim for another relief which might be available in the Revenue Court or consolidation Court, why the Civil Court is not competent to grant the relief of cancellation of deed for which the plaintiffs have come to the Civil Court. As a deed if remains in existence, it causes or may cause the mischief in various manners which may not be foreseen today but they may create a situation in future and therefore, why that be permitted to remain if its existence can be taken away by competent forum of the Civil Court.”
13. It brooks no dispute and is well settled by ex-cathedra pronouncement that a person who is not recorded in the revenue record, can file suit for cancellation of a sale deed/Instrument which according to the plaint allegation is void. This question has also been traversed upon in various decisions and I do not propose to make an idle parade of learning by citing all these decisions. It may quintessentially be noticed here that in case, executant of a document or any successor canvasses the validity of a deed in order to remove the cobwebs about his title and in case, the Civil Court declares the document void and rescinds it, followed by communication to the Registrar to this effect and the obstacle created by this document which on the basis of plaint allegations, is void, is cleared the name of the original tenure holder or his successor will come to be restored automatically — Immediately after cancellation of the document. It is left open to the plaintiff to choose whether his rights would be insulated by seeking cancellation of sale deed in Civil Court or by filing a suit for declaration of his rights as tenure holders. In case, he chooses that due to existence of a registered sale deed which according to the plaint allegations, is void, the hurdles come into play and rights are impugned upon though the document is void, he is fully competent and has every justification to Institute a civil suit in Civil Court seeking cancellation of document for the relief of adjudging and declaring the document as void. It is consequent upon declaration/cancellation of the document that the correction in the revenue records would be effected accordingly and he would not be subjected to seeking fresh declaration of his rights as Bhumidhar in any suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R Act and it is the Civil Court which would be vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
14. The settled position is that where the plaintiff is neither executant of the Instrument nor successor and happens to be a third party, notwithstanding the fact that a deed is cancelled on the basis of a Civil Court, the name of the plaintiff cannot be entered in the revenue record unless the plaintiff files a suit for declaration of his Bhumidhari rights on the basis of so-called sale deed executed by the Bhumidhar and this necessarily entails declaration of rights by the Revenue Court and plaintiff cannot claim any relief unless declaration is made in his favour, of his rights as Bhumidhar. The whole matter thus pivots on the cause of action and in order to properly appreciate the controversy the Court will have to recense the plaint allegations to dig out the real cause of action. What is the intendment behind real cause of action has been considered and thrashed out by the Full Bench decision in Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shanker, AIR 1969 All 526. In paragraph 54 of the said decision, cause of action has been ex-patiated upon at prolix length. It has been observed in that decision taking cue from a decision in Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub All Mian, AIR 1949 PC 78 that cause of action determines the jurisdiction of a Court. The term “cause of action” though nowhere defined is now very well understood. It means every fact which will be necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed in order to support his right to the judgment. The Court has to delve deep and scrutinise the pith and substance of the allegations in the plaint constituting cause of action in order to determine whether the plaintiff could avail of remedy in Revenue Court. In the facts of the present case, according to the plaint allegation, a sale deed is executed in favour of the plaintiff on 24-11-81. The sale deed in favour of defendant was, executed on 17-4-1981. The defendants are recorded tenure holders. Even if it be presumed that sale deed in favour of the defendant was cancelled, the plaintiff cannot appropriate it to his advantage by claiming any right unless a declaration comes to be made by Revenue Court that his sale deed is valid and he is the real and bona fide Bhumidhar. In this perspective, the pith and substance of the cause of action in the, present case is declaration of his rights as Bhumidhar. It is not a case where after obviating the hurdles by cancellation of the void document, the name of the original tenure holder will be automatically restored by ministerial act. It is thus, obvious that the plaintiff cannot derive any right unless declaration is made by Revenue Court. In the instant case, the plaintiff being third person, reliance on a subsequent sale deed dated 24-11-1981 i.e about seven months, after the execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant, he cannot claim any relief unless rights of the plaintiffs come to be declared as Bhumidhari. Before entering into the question of cancellation of the void document, the Civil Court has to adjudicate upon, and make declaration whether the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is valid one and this necessarily entails declaration of the title of s the plaintiff as Bhumidhari. It is not simply denial of the title of the defendant itself on the basis of the deed but it is declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff. In the above conspectus, it is only the Revenue Court which has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the revisional Court rightly concluded that Civil Court has no jurisdiction. According to the own admission, the plaintiff has not been in possession of the portion of land covered by the sale deed and by this reckoning, his claim of possession could also be entertained by Revenue Courts and in case, his title is established and if law so permits, the decree of possession could also be given to him by the Revenue Court. From the perusal of the plaint allegation, it is amply borne out that the cause of action emerging from the aforesaid allegations is to seek declaration of his rights as Bhumidhar on the basis of sale deed dated 24-11-1981 and unless it is done no relief can be granted in his favour. It is not a case of removal of hurdle looming over the title of the original tenure holders by filing a suit for cancellation of void document but it is a case of third party who is neither executant nor successor.
15. Question 1(a) is decided in affirmative and it is held that recorded tenure holder can institute suit for cancellation, if considered to be void in view of plaint allegations, in a Civil Court. Question No. 1(b) is also decided in affirmative and it is held that an executant or his successor could file suit in civil Court for cancellation of void document/Instrument. So far as question No. 1(c) is concerned, it is decided in negative and it is held that a third person, he is not recorded tenure holder or executant of the sale deed or his predecessor/successor is not competent to institute suit in Civil Court in view of the fact that his claim necessary involves declaration of his right, and the remedy lies in Revenue Courts only.
16. In the above conspectus, I converge to the view that the Revisional Court has rightly held the suit as not maintainable in Civil Court and the same is liable to be returned for being presented before the appropriate Court.
17. The order of the revisional Court is not upheld in so far as it does not direct the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for being presented before the appropriate Court.
18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part studded with the direction to the trial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented before the appropriate Court.
19. Petition allowed.