SHRI RAM AND ANR. versus IST ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 07-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRI RAM AND ANR. 
v. 
IST ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 7, 2001 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
UP. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act, 1950-Section 331; 
Schedule I !-Possession of s11it-/and thro11gh a registered sale deed-Tenure 
holder under revenue records--Respondents claiming suit-land through forged 
C sale deed-Direction to appellant to file a suit for declaration of title in 
Revenue Court-Validity of-Held, on facts, the direction to file a suit for 
declaration in Revenue Court is set aside as of the recorded tenure holder 
has prime facie title in his favour. 
D 
One V sold and delivered possession of the suit-land to appellants by a 
registered sale deed dated 12.7.1984. The names of the appellants have been 
recorded as tenure holders in revenue records. Respondents 3 and 4 got a 
forged sale deed dated 24. 7.1984 of the suit-land executed in their favour by 
projecting some impostor as V. On the strength of th~ forged sale deed, the 
respondents attempted to interfere with the possession of the appellants over 
E the suit-land. The appellants filed a suit before Civil Court for cancellation of 
the sale-deed of the respondents and for grant of injunction. Thii Trial Court 
allowed the suit. The Appellate Court having dismissed the appeal of the 
respondents, they filed Writ Petition before High Court. The High Court 
allowed the Writ Petition holding that since the original vendor has not filed 
p any suit for cancellation of the sale deed of the respondent in the civil court, 
the suit filed by the appellants was barred by Section 331 and Schedule II of 
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and that the remedy 
for the appellant was available in the Revenue Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the original vendor 
G V has filed a suit in civil court praying for cancellation of the sale deed of the 
respondents. 
Respondents 3 and 4 contended that the suit filed by the appellants in 
the civil court is barred under Section 331 of the Act; and that the Revenue 
H Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit for declaration. 
984 
SHRI RAM v. IST ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE [V.N. KHARE. J.] 
985 
-~ 
Allowing the appeal, the 'Court 
A 
HELD : 1.1. The original vendor has filed a suit in civil court for 
cancellation of the sale deed of the respondents dated 24.7.1984 which is not 
disputed by the respondents. The very premise on which the Writ Petition 
was allowed by the High Court is based on no evidence. (987-A-B] 
B 
1.2. The appellants are the recorded tenure holder in possession of the 
suit-land in pursuance of sale deed dated 12.7.1984. A recorded tenure holder, 
who is having a primafacie title and possession files a suit in a civil court for 
cancellation of sale deed of the respondents having obtained on the ground of 
fraud or impersonation, cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the c 
Revenue Court for the reason that in such a case,primafacie, the title of the 
recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of 
his title to the land. 1987-E; 988-G-HJ 
Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh & Ors., (1973] 2 SCC 535, 
distinguished. 
D 
Ram Padarath v. Second ADJ, 'Sultanpur, 11989] RD 21 and Smt. 
Bismillah v. Janeshwar Parsad & Ors., (199011SCC207, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4596 of 
1997. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.96 of the Allahabad High Court 
in C.M. (Review) Application No. 56009of1995. 
Satya Mitra Garg for the Appellants. 
R.D. Upadhyay, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad and G.G. F 
Upadhyay and Vikas Bansal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V. N. KHARE; J. The question for decision in this appeal is whether a G 
suit laid in the civil court by a recorded tenure holder in possession for 
+ 
cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the respondents executed by some 
imposters in respect of the land is barred under Section 331 and Schedule II 
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter 
referred to as the 'the Act'). The aforesaid question has arisen out of a suit 
brought by the plaintiff-appellants for cancellation of sale deed alleged to be H 
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 l] l S.C.R. 
A executed in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The case of the plaintiff-
appellants is that one Smt. Yidyawati Devi; who was the owner and Bhumidar 
of the land in dispute, transferr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.