1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5979 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.8352 of 2015

NARENDRA KUMAR MITTAL & ORS.   … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

M/S NUPUR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT  PVT. LTD. AND ANR.   … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5980  OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.8528 of 2015  

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

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

2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the

suit filed by the first respondent­plaintiff for cancellation of the sale

deed dated 15.06.2006 against the appellant­second defendant and

second respondent­first defendant,  and for  injunction restraining

them from interfering with its possession of the property was

maintainable?   

3. The plaintiff is a private limited company, registered under

the Companies Act, 1956. It had purchased from the first

defendant certain properties (for short  'the disputed property') in

Village Yakootpur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam

Budh  Nagar  under five sale deeds, all dated 17.10.1998.   The

plaintiff submitted an application in the office of the Tehsildar for

having its name entered in the record in respect of the disputed

property. During the pendency of these proceedings, it came to the

knowledge of  the officials of the plaintiff that the first defendant

had illegally sold the disputed property through four registered sale

deeds  all  dated  15.06.2006  in favour  of  defendant  Nos.  2 to  5.

Therefore, the plaintiff filed original suit No.55 of 2008 in the court

of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Gautam Budh Nagar, for

cancellation of the said sale deed and also for injunction against

3

the first defendant and the second defendant restraining them from

interfering with its possession and use of the property.

4. The second defendant questioned the maintainability of the

suit, having regard to Section 331 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition

and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’).   The Civil Court

vide order dated 22.05.2014 held that the suit was maintainable.

The second defendant challenged the said order before the

Allahabad High Court. After considering the matter, the High Court

dismissed the revision petition by its order dated 17.11.2014.  The

second defendant has called in question the legality and

correctness of the said order in this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  It is not in

dispute  that the disputed property  is  an agricultural land.  The

contention of the learned counsel for the second defendant is that

the suit in respect of agricultural land is barred under Section 331

of the Act.   Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff

submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff was only for cancellation

of the sale deed and for injunction and thus the bar contained in

Section 331 of the Act is not attracted.

4

6. This Court in Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors.1

has drawn a distinction between the suits cognizable by the civil

court and the cases where Revenue Court has exclusive

jurisdiction.  It was also held that the statutory provisions ousting

the jurisdiction of the civil court need to be strictly construed. It

was held thus:

"7.  It  is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. The provisions of a law which seek to oust the jurisdiction of civil court need to be strictly construed. Section 331 of the Act has been the subject of series of pronouncements of  the High Court as to the circumstances and the nature of  the suits in which its exclusionary effect operates. Distinction was sought to be drawn between  the  class  of  cases  where the binding effect of a deed had had to be got rid of by an appropriate adjudication on the one hand and the class of cases in which a transaction could  be  said to  be void in law where what the law holds to be void, there is nothing to cancel or set aside on  the other. In  the  former case, it  was held, a suit  was cognisable by the civil court  while in the latter, it was not, it being  open to the  statutory  authority to take  note of the legal incidents of  what was non est."

7. In the instant case, the plaintiff has pleaded that it had

purchased the disputed property under  five sale deeds all  dated 1 (1990) 1 SCC 207

5

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

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.  We are of the view that Section 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.   Revenue

Court does not have jurisdiction of granting relief of cancellation of

a deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.   

8. A similar question in relation to the maintainability of the suit

was considered by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in

Ram Padarath & Ors.  v. Second ADDL D.J., Sultanpur & Ors.,2

and it was held thus:­  

"We  are  of the view that the  case  of Indra Dev v. Smt. Ram Piari,3 has been correctly decided and the said decision requires no consideration, while the Division Bench case,  Ayodhya Prasad

2 (1989) RD 21 (All)(FB)

3 (1982) 8 ALR 517

6

(Dr) v. Gangotri Prasad4 is regarding the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities, but so far as it holds that suit in respect of void document will lie in the revenue court it does not lay down a good  law.  Suit  or  action  for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the civil court and  a party  cannot  be deprived  of  his right getting this relief permissible under law except  when a declaration  of  right  or status and a tenure­holder is necessarily needed in which event relief for cancellation will be surplusage and redundant.  A recorded  tenure­holder having  prima facie title in  his favour can hardly be directed to approach the revenue court in respect of seeking relief for cancellation of a void document which made him to approach the court of law and in such case he can also claim ancillary relief even though the same can be granted by the revenue court."

9. This Court in Shri Ram & Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge &

Ors.,5 considered the question relating to maintainability of a suit

by a recorded tenure holder in possession for cancellation of the

sale deed in favour of the respondents executed by some imposters.

After noticing the aforesaid judgment of the Full Bench of

Allahabad High Court, this Court held that where recorded tenure

holder, having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the

4 1981 AWC 469

5 (2001) 3 SCC 24

7

Civil Court for cancellation of sale deed having been obtained on

the ground of fraud or impersonation, it cannot be directed to file a

suit for declaration in the Revenue Court, reason being that in such

a case,  prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not

under cloud.   He does not require declaration of  his title to the

land.   However, if the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of

title, he has to approach the Revenue Court.      

10. 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.   

11. In  the  judgment of this Court in  Kamla Prasad & Ors.  v.

Kishna Kant Pathak & Ors.6, relied on by the learned counsel for

the appellant­second defendant, the plaintiff was the co­owner and

not a recorded tenure holder.   In the plaint, the plaintiff himself

had stated  that  he was not the sole  owner of the property and

defendants 10 to 12 who were proforma defendants had also right,

6 (2007) 4 SCC 213

8

title and interest therein. He had also stated that though his name

had appeared in the revenue record, defendants 10 to 12 also had a

right in the property.   In this factual background, this Court held

that such a question can be decided by the Revenue Court in a suit

instituted under Section 229­B of the Act.  It was also held that the

legality  or  otherwise  of the insertion of  names of  purchasers in

records of rights and deletion of the name of the plaintiff from such

record can only be tested by Revenue Court, since names of the

purchasers had already been entered into the record.   This

judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.   

12. We do not  find any merit in this appeal.   It is accordingly

dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   5980   OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8528 of 2015

13. Leave granted.

14.  The issue in this appeal is squarely covered  by the above

judgment.  Hence, this appeal is also dismissed.   There will be no

order as to costs.

……………………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA)

9

...………………………………… J.

(S. ABDUL NAZEER)

New Delhi; July 31, 2019.