Jai Prakash Singh vs Bachchu Lal & 17 Ors. on 27 September, 2019
"20. There is another reason for which the plaintiff should not be precluded from going to the civil court to get the deed cancelled even though, he 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 as has been referred in support of the argument for abating the suit under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, reported in Smt. Sumitra Devi v. Addl. District Judge [ 2000 (91) RD 45.] , 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 that 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.