Dwarika Singh, Son Of Ram Lagan Singh v. District Judge

1. The present petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the District Judge, Jaunpur dated 6-12-1982 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), wherein the learned District Judge has upheld the judgment and order of the learned Munsif dated 15-2-1981 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition).

2. The factual gamut of the case is that one Smt. Patiraji, respondent No. 3, filed Civil Suit No. 112 of 1974 on 16-4-1974 before the learned Munsif for the cancellation of the sale-deed of the agricultural land dated 14-9-1973 which had subsequently been registered on 25-9-1973 on the ground that respondent No. 3, who owned and possessed the land in dispute, had never executed the said sale-deed and it had been obtained by playing fraud as some one had been imposted as the vendor to execute the said sale-deed. The present petitioner who was the defendant in the said suit raised the preliminary objection that the Civil Suit was not maintainable as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the matter and the Revenue Court was the only Forum to cancel the said sale-deed. The learned Munsif, vide his order dated 15-9-1981 rejected the preliminary objection raised by the present petitioner and held that the Civil Court was competent to entertain the said suit for cancellation of the sale-deed (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the Civil Revision No. 235 of 1981 before the learned District Judge questioning the correctness of the judgment of the learned Munsif. The learned District Judge dismissed the said revision vide his judgment and order dated 6-12-1982 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri S.N Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.N Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case the Civil Suit is not maintainable as according to the allegations made in the plaint, the transaction is void and not voidable. In fact it is settled law that no order, transaction or contract can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud as fraud unravels everything.

4. Chief Justice Edward Coke of England, has observed about three centuries ago as under:—

“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”

5. Quoted in S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994 (1) SCC 1 : AIR 1994 SC 853 : 1994 AIR SCW 243.

6. In the case of Nigawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa Chireknrabar, AIR 1968 SC 956, it was held that a contract induced by fraud is not void, but only voidable at the option of the party defrauded. Until it is avoided, the transaction is valid. But the legal position will be different if there is a fraudulent misrepresentation nor merely to the contents of the document but as to its character.

7. In the case of Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh, (1973) 2 SCC 535 : AIR 1973 SC 2451, the Apex Court observed as under:—

“We think that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any Court or authority and one where it has to be actually set aside before it can cease to have legal effect. An alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be, to the extent of the excess of power, invalid. An adjudication on the effect of such a purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to rights or interests in land which are the subject-matter of consolidation proceedings. The existence and quantum of rights claimed or denied will have to be declared by the consolidation authorities which would be deemed to be invested with jurisdiction, by the necessary implication of their statutory powers to adjudicate upon such rights and interests in land, to declare such documents effective or ineffective, but, where there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by setting it aside or its cancellation, it could be urged that the consolidation authorities have no power to cancel the deed, and, therefore, it must be held to be binding on them so long as it is not cancelled by a Court having the power to cancel it. In the case before us, the plaintiff's claim is that the sale of his half share by his uncle was invalid, inoperative, and void. Such a claim could be adjudicated upon by consolidation Courts. We find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jagannath Shukla's case (supra), that it is the substance of the claim and not its form which is decisive.”

8. Both the aforesaid judgments were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh, 1990 Supp SCC 216 : AIR 1990 SC 1173 : 1990 All LJ 245. In the said case the thumb impression of the executant an illiterate woman had been obtained on the sale-deed by making her believe that she was executing gift deed in favour of her daughter. The misrepresentation has been as to the character of document and not as to its contents. Her mind never accompanied her thumb impression. The deed was totally void and not voidable and thus it was held that Civil Suit was not maintainable as the same stood barred under the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as the consolidation proceedings were pending on the date of institution of the said suit. But in the instant case neither the consolidation proceedings are involved nor the plaintiff/respondent no. 3 is required to get any further declaration under the provisions of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1953.

9. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has referred to as relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Padrath v. Ilnd Addl. Dist. Judge, Sultanpur, 1989 Allahabad Civil Journal 1. While deciding the aforesaid case this Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani, AIR 1966 SC 1718 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:—

“It is settled principle that it is for the party who seeks to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to establish his contention. It is also equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a Civil Court must be strictly construed”.

10. In the case of Ram Padarath it has been held that the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed is filed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act which makes specific provision for cancellation of void as well as voidable instrument. Section 31 of the Act reads as under:—

(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, 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, 1908 (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 facts of its cancellation”.

11. The Full Bench has held as under:—

“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”………”

“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”.

xxxxxx

“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 uncancelled 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 avoided 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 Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Such a document may mislead many and may give rise to various transactions and litigations……”

“We are of the view that the case of Indra Devi v. Smt. Ram Piari, 1982 ALJ 1308, has been correctly decided and the said decision requires no consideration, while the Division Bench case. Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangootri, 1981 AWC 469 is regarding the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities, but so far as it holds that suit in respect 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 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 such case he can also claim ancillary relief even though the same can be granted by the revenue Court”.

12. The aforesaid judgment in the case of Ram Padarath was considered and approved by the Apex Court, in the case of Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad, (1990) 1 SCC 207 : AIR 1990 SC 540 : 1989 All LJ 1335. In the said case it has been held that where the party in his suit proceeded on the premise that he could not ignore the sale-deed but that the sale-deed requires to be cancelled before he would be entitled to possession and other consequential reliefs, the suit would not be barred under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act, 1951 and the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain it.

13. In the said case the Court observed as under:—

“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 law which seek to oust the jurisdiction of Civil Court needs to be strictly construed. Distinction was sought to be drawn between the class of cases where the binding effect of a deed had to be 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, there is nothing to cancel 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”.

14. It is further observed as under:—

“It is true that question of jurisdiction depends upon the allegations in the plaint and not the merits or the result of the suit. However, in order to determine the premise nature of the action, the pleadings should be taken as a whole…………. The real point is not the stray or loose expression which abound in inartistically drafted plaints, but the real substance of the case gathered by construing pleadings as a whole”.

15. In the case of Lal Bihari v. III Addl. Dist. Judge, Mirzapur, 1995 Allahabad Civil Journal 1085, it has been observed that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not concurrent with that of the Revenue Court and in the facts and circumstances of that case it was held that the Civil Suit was not maintainable and the only appropriate forum was the Revenue Authority.

16. In the instant case it has been admitted at the Bar that the contesting respondent had been recorded as Bhumidhar of the land in dispute in the Revenue Record and Respondent No. 3 had not sought any relief other than mere declaration that the sale-deed was non est. Thus, the case is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Padarath (supra). The judgment in the case of Lal Bihari (supra) is distinguishable.

17. In view of the above, the petition fails and being devoid of any merit, it is dismissed. However, as the suit has been filed in 1974, but could not be proceeded with because of the interim orders of this Court, learned Munsif, Jaunpur is directed to decide the Suit No. 112 of 1974, Mst. Pati Raji v. Dwarika Singh, pending in his Court most expeditiously.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

19. Petition dismissed.