Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the alleged sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent was executed by a person, who did not exist in the village concerned and the vendor of that sale-deed is not the son of Ram Padarath, who was the originally recorded tenure-holder and Ram Padarath died issueless. It is stated that the vendor of the sale-deed was not competent to execute the sale-deed as he is neither the son of the recorded tenure-holder nor is the owner of the property in dispute. It is contended that the defendants are in possession over the property in dispute. It is further contended that given the provisions of Section 206 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the suits for injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent would not be maintainable and, therefore, the orders impugned granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is stated that even otherwise the plots in dispute have been transferred by an imposter rendering the sale deed void and therefore, no temporary injunction could be granted.

11. Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent, has drawn the attention of the Court to the plaint of the aforesaid O.S. No. 700 of 2016, O.S. No. 664 of 2016 and Suit No.232 of 2016 filed before the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer by the defendant-petitioners under Section 144 of the Code, 2006 to contend that the declaration sought for in that suit was for voidance of three sale-deeds respectively dated 12.12.2013, 14.09.2015 and 14.01.2014, and that on the basis of a document dated 23.03.1953, the plaintiffs therein be declared the legal representatives of the deceased Ram Padarath and as bhumidhar with transferable rights. It is stated that the suit for declaration itself would not be maintainable before the Sub-Divisional Officer given the nature of the relief sought. It is contended that the revenue court has no power to grant any declaration for declaring any sale-deed void. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the petitioners have concealed the fact that subsequently a suit was filed by the defendant-petitioners in the civil court for declaring the aforestated sale-deeds, that find mention in the suit filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, as void. It is contended that under the circumstances, the order of status quo passed by the revenue court would not have any bearing in the original suits and the orders passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court are justified.

17. So far as judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Nasar Abdulla is concerned, a perusal of the judgment reveals that facts of the case were completely different from the case at hand.

In Nasar Abdulla, the Court has iterated the legal position that the registered sale deed would be deemed to be valid document unless it is cancelled or declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction. However, the question involved in the present petitions is whether on the basis of sale deeds alone, could a prima facie case be said to be made out in favour of the plaintiff and whether only the basis of those sale deeds would the balance of convenience and irreparable injury tilt in favour of the plaintiff given the assertion of the petitioner-defendants that the sale deeds are void and that a suit for declaration of title is pending.

The other question that arose before the Supreme Court was whether a recorded tenure-holder having prima facie title in his favour and in possession is required to file a suit in the revenue court or it is the civil court which has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit seeking relief of cancellation of a void document. The Supreme Court while relying upon a judgment of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ram Padarath (supra) held as under:-

"7. 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 been obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the Revenue Court, the 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".