LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL & ORS. versus M/S. NUPUR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 31-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL & ORS.
v.
M/s. NUPUR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.
AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5979 of 2019)
JULY 31, 2019
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 –
s. 331 – First respondent-plaintiff purchased disputed property from
the second respondent-first defendant under five sale deeds, all
dated 17.10.1998 – Plaintiff found that first defendant had illegally
sold the disputed property through four registered sale deed all
dated 15.06.2006 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 – Suit filed by
plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.06.2006 and
also for injunction restraining defendants from interfering with its
possession – Appellant-defendant No.2 questioned the
maintainability of the suit having regard to s.331 of the Act – Civil
Court held the suit maintainable – Revision petition by the defendant
No.2 was also dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: The
plaintiff had not sought any relief with respect to its own right and
title as a tenure holder or declaration of its title or status – The only
relief sought was for cancellation of the alleged sale deed dated
15.06.2006 – s. 331 of the Act does not deprive a party of his right
to approach competent court of law for getting a document
cancelled, especially when, prima facie, the title of the recorded
tenure holder is not under cloud – There is no bar u/s.331 of the
Act for the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court and the suit filed by
it was maintainable.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. In the instant case, the plaintiff has pleaded that
it had purchased the disputed property under five sale deeds all
dated 17.10.1998 from the first defendant.  The suit was filed for
cancellation of the sale deed dated 15.06.2006 on the ground of
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 868
868
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
869
fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff had not sought any relief
with respect to its own right and title as a tenure holder or
declaration of its title or status.  As stated above, the only relief
sought in the suit filed was for cancellation of the alleged sale
deed dated 15.06.2006. This Court is of the view that Section
331 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
does not deprive a party of his right to approach competent court
of law for getting a document cancelled, especially when, prima
facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under
cloud.  Revenue Court does not have jurisdiction of granting
relief of cancellation of a deed on the ground of fraud and
misrepresentation. [Para 7] [872-B-D]
2. In the instant case, since the plaintiff claims title under
sale deeds of 1998 executed by the first defendant, it need not
be forced to seek a declaration of its title.  Therefore, the plaintiff
had filed a suit for cancellation of the subsequent sale deed
executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant.
Hence, there is no bar under Section 331 of the Act for the plaintiff
to approach the civil court and the suit filed by it was maintainable.
[Para 10] [873-D-E]
Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors. (1990) 1
SCC 207 – relied on.
Ram Padarath & Ors. v. Second ADDL D.J., Sultanpur
& Ors. (1989) RD 21 (All)(FB) – approved.
Shri Ram & Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge & Ors. (2001)
3 SCC 24 : [2001] 1  SCR  984 – referred to.
Kamla Prasad & Ors. v. Kishna Kant Pathak & Ors.
(2007) 4 SCC 213 :  [2007] 2  SCR 395 – inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
(1990) 1 SCC 207
relied on
Para 6
[2001] 1 SCR 984 
referred to
Para 9
[2007] 2 SCR 395
inapplicable
Para 11
NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL v. M/S NUPUR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5979
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2014 of the  High Court
of  Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision Defective No. 128 of 2014.
With
Civil Appeal No. 5980 of 2019.
H. C. Kharbanda, Jabar Singh, T. N. Saxena, Garvesh Kabra,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Shariq, Aman Rastogi, Syed Abdul
Haseeb, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5979 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8352 of 2015
1. Leave granted.
2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit
filed by the first respondent-plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed
dated 15.06.2006 against

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