LexSMT. DULARIA DEVI versus JANARDAN SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SMT. DULARIA DEVI A v. JANARDAN SINGH & ORS. MARCH 2, 1990 [LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND T. KOCHU THOMMEN, JJ.l B U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: S. 49-Void sale ._. deed-Suit for cancellarion of-Whether barred when consolidation proceedings are pending. - -,( - '· r ' ..., .\ ' Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 puts a bar on the civil and revenue courts in respect of disputes in regard to which proceedings could or ought to have been taken under the Act. The plaintiff-appellant, an illiterate lady, wanted to make a gift of her properties in favour of her daughter. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, who nndertook to make arrangements to execute and register the necessary deed, however, practised a fraud on her. They made her put her thumb impression on two documents which she bad been told and she honestly believed were the gift deed in favour of her daughter. She bad in fact executed two deeds, one of which was a gift in favour of her daughter c D and the other a sale deed in favour of the defendants. Later when she 'came to know of the facts, she filed a suit for cancellation of the sale E deed. Consolidation proceedings were then pending in respect of the property in question. The suit was decreed by the trial court and that decree was confmned in appeal by the First Appellate Court. The High Court, however, found that the plaintiff was totally deceived as to the cbarac- p ter of the document which she bad executed and the document was, therefore, void and of no effect whatsoever. Accordingly, it held that the suit was barred by reason of s. 49 of the Act . In the appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant that since it was a case of the document having been vitiated by fraud, G the tl"dnsaction was voidable but not void and, therefore, the bar of s. 49 oftbe Act was not attracted. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD: 1.1 A voidable document is one which remains in force H 799 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 1 S.C.R. A until set aside and such a document can be set aside only hy a competent civil court. A suit for that purpose would, therefore, be maintainable. A ~ claim that a transaction is void is, however, a matter which can be adjudicate~ upon by the consolidation authorities. [802E-Fl Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh & Ors., [1974] l SCR B 339, referred to. 1.2 In the instant case, the plaintiff-appellant was totally igno- rant of the mischief played upon her. She honestly believed that the instrument which she executed and got registered was a gift deed in favour of her daughter. She believed that the thumb impressions taken from her were in respect of that single document. She did not know that C she bad executed two documents, one of which alone was the gift deed, but the other was a sale of the property in favour of the defendants. This was, therefore, a case of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document executed by her and not merely as to its contents or as to its legal effect. The plaintiff-appellant never intended O to sign what she did sign. She never intended to enter into the contract to which she unknowingly became a party. Her mind did not accom- pany her thumb impressions. ft was thus a totally void transaction. [804C-E] Ningawwa v. Byrappa & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 797, applied. E No suit was, therefore, maintainable by reason of the bar con- F G tained in s. 49 of the Act. l804EJ 2. The remedy of the plaintiff lies in the proceedings pending before the consolidation authorities and it is open to the parties to approach them for appropriate relief. [804Fl CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2998 of 1980. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.1980 of the Allaha- bad High Court in S.A. No. 2954 of 1979. M.S. Gujral and Mohan Pandey for the Appellant. Satish Chandra, Praveen Swamp and Pramod Swamp for the Respondent. H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by - SMT. DULARIA v.JANARDAN ITHOMMEN, J.J 801 THOMMEN, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the A 'y judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2954, of 1979 whereby the learned Judges of the High Court, allowing the defendants' ~ppeal set aside the decrees of the courts below. The High Court held that the suit was barred by reason of Section 49 ofthe.U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Hence the present appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.