Allahabad High Court
Radhey Shyam And Ors. vs Vii Addl. Dist. Judge Sitapur And Ors. on 8 January, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1397 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 22879 of 2019 Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam And Ors. Respondent :- Vii Addl. Dist. Judge Sitapur And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Shankar Sahai,Madhav Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Anuradha Singh,Jayanti Shukla,Pashupati Nath Dwivedi Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sitapur, whereby, the suit of the petitioners was dismissed in view of the bar created by virtue of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as the order dated 24.05.2019, whereby, the miscellaneous appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.
3. The facts in brief are that the father of the petitioners along with his two brothers were owner of the agricultural property to the extent of 1/3rd of share. Subsequently, the petitioners claimed that one of the uncles Bharat, prior to his death, had executed a Will in their favour whereas the other brother claimed succession to the property owned by the brother Bharat and thereafter executed a sale deed after his name was mutated by virtue of being a family member of Bharat.
4. It is argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Will executed in favour of the petitioner was concealed in the suit in question, which was filed claiming cancellation of the sale deed executed on 05.08.1997 in respect of the property in which the petitioner had claimed the ownership by virtue of a Will in his favour. The relief of mandatory injunction was also prayed. The plaint is on record as Annexure-6. The said plaint was defended by the respondents. One of the ground taken was that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It was also specifically pleaded in the written statement that the Will allegedly executed, is forged and fabricated. The trial court after considering the pleadings, specifically made a prayer, dismissed the suit in view of the bar created by virtue of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act mainly on the ground that the property in question was an agricultural property and the relief as claimed, could be obtained by filing an appropriate proceedings before the review court. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be dismissed.
5. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners is that both the courts have erred in dismissing the suit filed by the petitioners, inasmuch as, it was specifically pleaded by the plaintiffs that they were the owner of the 1/3rd of the land and also share of their uncle who had executed a Will in their favour and thus both the courts were wrong in dismissing the suit.
6. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Padarath and others vs Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others; 1988 SCC OnLine All 685. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Chankali vs Doodh Nath Mani and others (Second Appeal No.1013 of 2010) decided on 04.10.2010, wherein, this Court had the occasion to consider the judgment in the case of Ram Padarath (Supra) and also the mandate of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The relevant portion as emphasized by the Counsel for the petitioners are as under:
"The Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram and another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge and others 2001 (1) AWC 862 : 2001(1) CRC 417 : JT 2001 (12) SC 573 : AIR 2001 (2) SC 1250 observed as under:
".........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."
The legal position that emerges from the above authorities is that a civil suit for cancellation of a document in respect of an agricultural land may not be ordinarily barred provided that the person bringing that suit has a prima facie title i.e. some semblance of ownership which he may prima facie prove by entry of his name in the revenue records, which is based on possession and succession or transfer.
It is settled legal position that entries in the revenue records are not documents of title and they are meant only for fiscal purposes to enable State to collect revenue from the persons recorded. The entries in the revenue records in no way extinguishes or creates title in favour of the person(s) recorded. Nonetheless such entries have prima facie evidentary value It is also well known that mutation in the revenue records takes place on the orders of a competent authority and Amaldaramad is only a ministerial act consequent to such an order. The order of mutation regardless of actual entry proves that the competent authority is satisfied with the possession and succession/transfer of the person concern. Therefore, a person in whose favour the order of mutation exists, irrespective of the fact that such an order has been given effect to or not, is a person who can be treated to be a person having some semblance of title in the land in dispute. It is not necessary that his prima facie title would stand proved only by recording of his name. "
7. The next case relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners in the case of Devendra vs Smt. Lalmati and others (Civil Revision No.250 of 2016), decided on 13.03.2019, wherein, once again the Court had the occasion to deal with the law in the case of Ram Padarath (Supra) as well as the scope of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
8. In the light of the said, it is argued by the Counsel for the petitioners that both the orders are liable to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
9. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner, merits rejection in view of the specific averment contained in the plaint wherein, no relief was sought in respect of the declaration of ownership insofar as 1/3rd of the right allegedly claimed by the plaintiffs by virtue of a Will executed in their favour was sought. The petitioners claimed ownership of only 1/3rd of the property which flew in their favour by virtue of being a successor of Mangre Lal which is based upon the right flow from the brother of Mangre Lal i.e. Bharat. There were no allegation in the suit that the sale deed was executed in a forged and fabricated manner.
10. In view thereof and in view of the law explained in Ram Padarath (Supra), the trial court and the appellate court had rightly dismissed the suit as not being maintainable in view of the bar created under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, as such, no interference is required to be called for. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
11. The petitioners would be at liberty to agitate their rights in accordance with law, if so advised.
Order Date :- 8.1.2025 akverma