KAMLA PRASAD AND ORS. versus SRI KRISHNA KANT PATHAK AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 09-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KAMLA PRASAD AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SRI KRISHNA KANT PATHAK AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 9, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ .] 
B 
Jurisdiction-Jurisdiction of Civil Court vis-a-vis Revenue Court-Suit 
for declaration of sale deeds as null and void-In respect of agricultural as 
well abadi lands-Before Civil Court-Right, title and interest of the co- C 
sharers of the vendor and entries of names in Revenue Record required to 
be decided-Trial and Appellate Courts holding that Civil Court had 
jurisdiction to decide the case only to the extent of Abadi land-Jn Writ 
Petition, High Court held the suit maintainable before Civil Court-On 
appeal, held: In the facts of the case, in respect of agricultural land Revenue 
Court alone had jurisdiction to decide the case and not the civil court-UP. D 
Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950-s. 299B. 
Respondent No. I - Plaintiff filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale 
deeds executed by him in favour of the contesting respondents and appellant-
defendant on the ground that the same were illegal and null and void as they 
were not executed with his free will and on his own accord but under E 
intoxication; that he being co-sharer of the property with respondent Nos. 10 
to 12 (though their names not entered in Revenue Records), he alone had no 
right, title or interest to sell the property. Defendants questioned the 
jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Trial Court held that suit was cognizable by 
the Civil Court so far as abadi land was concerned and in respect of F 
agricultural land jurisdiction vested with the Revenue Court under Section 
299B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Appellate 
Court confirmed the order of the trial court. Respondent No. I-Plaintiff filed 
a Writ Petition which was allowed by High Court holding that the suit was 
maintainable before Civil Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
" 
HELD: I. In the light of the facts of the case, the Courts below were 
wholly right in reaching the conclusion that such a suit could be entertained 
only by a Revenue Court and Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The High Court 
G 
395 
I-I 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
by reversing those orders had committed an error of law and of jurisdiction 
which deserves interference by this Court. !Para 1611401-DI 
4 
2. So far as abadi land is concerned, the trial Court held that Civil Court 
had jurisdiction and the said decision has become final. But as far as 
agricultural land is concerned, the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court 
B were right in coming to the conclusion that only Revenue Court could have 
entertained the suit on two grounds. Firstly, the case of the plaintiff himself 
in the plaint was that he was not the sole owner of the property and defendant 
Nos. IO to 12 who were proforma defendants, had also right, title and interest 
therein. He had also stated in the plaint that though in the Revenue Record, 
). 
c 
only his name had appeared but defendant Nos. 10 to 12 have also right in the 
property. Both the Courts below were right in holding that such a question 
can be decided by a Revenue Court in a suit instituted under Section 229-B 
ofZamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. [Para 1211399-E-GI 
3. Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that legality or 
D otherwise of insertion of names of purchasers in Record of Rights and deletion 
of name of the plaintiff from such record can only be decided by Revenue Coun 
since the names of the purchasers had already been entered into. Only Revenue 
Court can record a finding whether such an action was in accordance with 
,; 
law or not and it cannot be decided by a Civil Court. [Para 1311400-DI 
E 
Shri Ram and Anr. v. !st Addi. Distt. Judge and Ors., (2001 I 3 SCC 24, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3659 of2003. 
Si 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 10.8.200 I of the High Court 
F of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 386 of 1990. 
Shobha Dixit, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Sanjay Misra for the Appellants. 
Manoj K. Mishra, Anju, Sheela, Amit Yadav, D.N. Dubey, Kamlendra 
Mishra and Rachana Srivastava for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. THAKKER, J. I. This appeal is filed by the appellant-original 
,f) . 
defendant Nos. 1to6 against an order dated August 10, 2001, passed by the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 
H 386of19

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.