1. This revision is directed against the order dated 20-4-1983 recorded by Sri V.S Shukla, learned Addl. Civil Judge, Saharanpur in suit No. 254 of 1980, Smt. Bismillah Begum v. Nazar Mohd., deciding issue No. 4 against the defendants-revisionists.
2. It appears that Smt. Bismillah Begum, respondent No. 1 filed a suit against 11 defendants. Defendants nos. 1 to 3 are defendants-Ist. Set, while defendants Nos. 4 to 11 are defendants-IInd Set. Reliefs sought were for recovery of possession over agricultural plots detailed in Schedule-A of the plaint after cancelling sale deeds executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendants IInd Set. There was also a relief for rendition of accounts against defendants 1st Set. Costs of the suit were also claimed. It was alleged that plaintiffs father Sri Nawab Nural Rehman Khan was owner in possession of the disputed holding. After his death in 1967 plaintiff and Smt. Badrul Jahan inherited this property being daughter and widow respectively of Nawab Nural Rehman Khan. Plaintiff became the sole owner of the entire moveable and immoveable property left by Nawab Nural Rehman Khan, after the death of Smt. Badrul Jahan.
3. As she was a Pardah Nashin lady and could not effectively manage the extensive property inherited by her she appointed defendants-Ist Set as her Attorney to manage this property. A general power of attorney was executed in their favour on 17-4-69. In May, 69 she went to Pakistan and married twice. She returned to India in the month of December, 79 and detected that defendants 1st. Set dissipated her property and fraudulently executed sale deeds in favour of defendants-IInd. Set, their relatives, etc. These sale deeds were void as these were executed without consent of plaintiff, who then discovered that in the general power of attorney drawn in Hindi they got inserted a clause authorising the disposal of property entrusted in their management. Plaintiff did not know the language in which the said document was drawn and such execution of document was not her intelligent act nor she authorised them to execute the ale deeds in question. Thus the suit was filed.
4. Defendants contested the claim and raised a plea covered by issue No. 4 questioning the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain and hear the suit. This issue was decided as a preliminary issue by learned Addl. Civil Judge by the impugned order who found that the documents in question were not void but voidable and the reliefs for cancellation and rendition of accounts were awardable by Civil court alone and thus the suit was well within the cognizance of the civil court.
5. Aggrieved by this decision this revision has been filed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. On behalf of the revisionist it was argued that the impugned order is totally silent about the relief for possession over agricultural plots which was the main relief sought by plaintiff, the other reliefs were simply ancillary reliefs. The pith and substance of the plaint disclosed that the transactions were void and the main relief was relief for possession over this extensive holding which was obtainable from the Revenue court only who could have adjudged these sale deeds void on the averments made in the plaint.
8. In this connection reliance was placed upon Vijai Singh v. 2nd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr reported in 1982 All LJ 725.
9. In that case plaintiff filed a suit in civil court. The relief sought was for declaration of his right in certain agricultural land, another relief was for cancellation of the sale deed alleged to have been executed by him on the ground that it was forgery. Another relief sought was for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. It was held that the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. It was exclusively within the jurisdiction of Revenue court to have granted the main relief according to the averments made in the plaint. The mere fact that plaint was couched in language to give jurisdiction to civil court was immaterial and the scrutiny of the allegations disclosed that the main reliefs were awardable by Revenue court and not by civil court.
10. The next authority has been reported in Mohd. Umar Khan v. Idris Mohammad reported in AIR 1980 All 89. It was decided by a Division Bench. It appears that in that suit a joint grove holder sought relief against other grove holders for mandatory injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession. It was held that the pith and substance of the allegations made in the plaint was to be scrutinised. If it revealed that adequate relief may be granted by a revenue court the suit could be cognizable by the revenue court even though reliefs claimed in the suit were exclusively awardable by a civil-court.
11. In the instant case also many of these plots were alleged to be groves and all the property was agricultural holding possession of which was being sought.
12. The next reliance was placed upon Sheopal v. Smt. Lakhpata, reported in (1979) 5 All LR 487.
13. In that case the suit was filed in the court of Munsif, Atraula, district-Gonda for cancellation of a sale deed said to have been executed by plaintiff Smt. Lakhpata on 2-6-66 in favour of the defendant.
14. It was alleged that plaintiff was a minor at the time of execution of the sale deed and it was procured through fraudulent misrepresentation without any consideration. She learnt subsequently that instead of power of attorney which was to be executed by her she was made to execute sale deed in respect of property belonging to her in favour of the applicants.
15. Issue No. 4 related to abatement of suit under section (2) of U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1958 which comes into play in cases of agricultural holding only. It was held that the suit was liable to abatement under section 5(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
16. Next authority relied upon has been reported in Khilari v. III Addl. District Judge, Banda, 1983 All LJ 369. It was a suit for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground of its being a sham transaction. It was found that relief of possession was the main relief although not claimed in the suit. So the proceedings were quashed by virtue of Section 331, Explanation of U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (1 of 1951).
17. In Baij Nath v. Binda reported in 1978 All WC 52 : (AIR 1978 NOC 66) cited on behalf of respondents it was held that where a document is alleged to be void, which could be so adjudged by consolidation courts also it is only when the transaction is alleged to be voidable that its cancellation etc. can be sought in civil court.
18. It was further found that if the allegations made in the plaint were made out the aforesaid documents would be void and not voidable.
19. Next authority relief upon by learned counsel for the respondents have been reported in Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar, AIR 1969 All 526 (FB). It was a suit for demolition and possession in respect of agricultural land against trespassers. It was held that civil courts had jurisdiction as the main relief in the suit was for demolition and injunction.
20. It was further held that in each and every case the cause of action of the suit shall have to be strictly scrutinised to determine whether the suit is solely cognizable by a revenue court or is impliedly cognizable only by a revenue court, or is cognizable by a civil court. Where in a suit, from a perusal only of the reliefs claimed, one or more of them are ostensibly cognizable only by civil court and at least one relief is cognizable only by the revenue court, then the question would arise whether all the reliefs are based on the same cause of action and if so, where the main relief would be awardable by revenue court or by civil court. The main relief means real and substantial relief flowing from the cause of action giving rise to the suit. The determination of the question as to which out of the several reliefs arising from the same cause of action is the main relief will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
21. In the instant case a scrutiny of the averments made in the plaint shall go to disclose that plaintiff alleged these transactions to be void executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 keeping her in dark about the recitals in the general power of attorney executed by, her without understanding the language of the power of attorney, she alleged the transactions to be fraudulent and void, she alleged that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 dissipated her property while she was away. Defendants IInd-Set are obviously in possession over the agricultural holding for which possession is being sought. The relief for cancellation of the sale deed or for accounting would be simply illusory and could be of no avail to the plaintiff, without possession over the holding. It was not shown through any allegation made in the plaint that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were accounting party nor the relief for accounting has been tentatively valued. It appears that these two reliefs were simply added, in the plaint, to the main relief for possession over the agricultural holding which was exclusively obtainable in the revenue court.
22. A mere look at section 331 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act shall go to disclose that in respect of holding no court other than the 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 mentioned in column 3 thereof. Explanation appended to this Section further shows that 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.
23. Obviously the relief for possession against defendants Second Set who are in continuous possession for a long period over this holding was awardable by the revenue court only under Section 209 of U.P Act No. 1 of 1951; similarly on the averments of the plaint that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants IInd Set were simply void and not voidable as plaintiff did not understand the clauses in the power of attorney insertion of which was alleged to be fraudulent such document could be adjudged as void by a Revenue Court also. Even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that relief for cancellation of voidable document was awardable by a civil court and the relief for accounting could be granted only by civil court, a close scrutiny of the averments of plaint shall go to disclose that the main relief sought by the plaintiff was for recovery of possession over the agricultural holdings which could be awarded by revenue court only and according to the Explanation appended to section 331 of U.P Act 1 of 1951 such claim could have lain only in the revenue court and not in civil court.
24. In the result revision is allowed. The 5. The 13 limpugned order is set aside. Let the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper court. Costs easy. Stay order dated 3-10-1983 is vacated.
25. Revision allowed.