LexKHURSHEED & ANR. versus SHAQOOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 963 : 2024 INSC 764 Khursheed & Anr. v. Shaqoor (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26454 of 2019) 10 September 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether by virtue of s.5(2)(a) upon publication of Notification u/s.4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, any pending civil suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by fraud and impersonation, stands abated and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try such a suit is ousted in terms of s.49 of Consolidation Act. Headnotes† U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 – s.5(2)(a) and s.49 – Respondent herein filed a civil suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed before the Civil Judge – Petitioner No.2 herein filed an application stating that suit stands abated as per s.5(2)(a) of the Consolidation Act – The said application was allowed by the Civil Court and appeal against the same was dismissed – However, the High Court came to the conclusion that as the allegation is that the sale deed was executed by playing fraud and by impersonation, it would be a “voidable” document and thus, any suit, for cancellation of a voidable sale deed will not abate by virtue of Section 5(2)(a) of the Consolidation Act – Correctness: Held: It is settled that a “voidable” document continues to be in force until it is set aside and such a document can only be set aside by a competent civil court – Further, such documents are binding upon the Consolidation Authorities so long as they are not cancelled or set aside by a Court vested with the jurisdiction to do so – It is also settled that the consolidation authorities do not have the jurisdiction and power to cancel a document, which is required to be set aside or cancelled and the document will continue to be valid till it is cancelled by a Competent Court i.e. a Civil Court – If the document is void, it would be open for the Consolidation Authorities to disregard such a document & in such a case, they would get the exclusive jurisdiction to proceed with 964 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports the matter – But if the document is voidable, the Civil Court is vested with the jurisdiction to declare the same to be voidable – In the case of voidable documents, not only would the Consolidation Authorities have no power to cancel such documents, but even the proceedings pending before any competent Civil Court would not abate – In the instant case, the allegation here is that the fraudulent misrepresentation was by petitioner No. 1’s mother, who executed the sale deed dated 09.08.2016 by impersonation, it would make the sale deed voidable, but not void – The Sale Deed dated 09.08.2016 will be binding on the Consolidation Authorities unless it is set aside by a competent Civil Court and there would be no bar on jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try a suit for cancellation of such a sale deed. [Paras 10, 11] Case Law Cited Ningawwa v. Byrappa [1968] 2 SCR 797 : (1968) 2 SCR 797 – relied on. Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh [1974] 1 SCR 339 : (1973) 2 SCC 535; Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh & Ors. [1990] 1 SCR 799 : AIR 1990 SC 1173; Ram Sakal Singh v. Mosamat Monako Devi [1997] 2 SCR 357 : (1997) 5 SCC 192 – relied on. List of Acts UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1954; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Section 5(2)(a) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954; Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954; Article 226/227 Constitution of India; void document; Voidable document; Jurisdiction; Competent civil court; Cancellation of sale deed; Consolidation Authorities; Fraud; Misrepresentation; Impersonation; Abate. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26454 of 2019 From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2019 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WPMS No. 93 of 2019 [2024] 9 S.C.R. 965 Khursheed & Anr. v. Shaqoor Appearances for Parties Ravindra Kumar Raizada, Sr. Adv., Sarthak Raizada, Ms. Divya Roy, Advs. for the Petitioners. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Md. Anas Chaudhary, Mohd. Sharyab Ali, Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. The question which arises in this petition for our determination relates to the bar on jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 5(2) (a) read with Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 (hereinafter referr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.