- (1.) The question raised in this petition for special leave is whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain appellant's suit No. 254 of 1980 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur for cancellation of certain sale-deeds respecting agricultural lands, and for possession is barred by S. 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, (1951 Act). The High Court by its order dated 30th November, 1984, in Civil Revn. No. 379 of 1983 (reported in 1985 All LJ 325) was persuaded to the, view, in reversal of the finding to the contrary on the preliminary issue as to jurisdiction recorded by the trial Court that the averments in the plaint in substance amounted to a plea of nullity of the transactions and that the main-relief in the suit was really one for "possession", grantable exclusively by the Revenue Court. Accordingly, the High Court directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. We have heard Dr. Shankar Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Shri R. K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. Special leave is granted. The appeal is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) Appellant's case before the trial Court was that she, as the, only daughter of Nawab Nurul Rahman Khan inherited his estate; that as she was paradanashin she on the representation of respondents 1 to 3 appointed them as her agents to manage the estate under an instrument of agency dated 17-4-1969., that the said document drafted in Hindi, a language not known to appellant, was later discovered by her to have contained an unauthorised clause empowering sale of the properties; and that taking advantage of appellant's absence from India, the said agents had entered into fraudulent and collusive sales respecting the properties in favour of the other respondents, who are their close relatives and confidants. Appellant sought the cancellation of the sale deeds, delivery of possession and rendition of accounts of incomes and profits. Respondents, inter alia, pleaded, that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of such a suit was barred under S. 331 of the 'Act'. The issue No. 4 framed in this behalf was tried as a preliminary issue on which the trial Court held against the respondents. The High Court, in revision, has reversed that finding and has held the suit not maintainable in the Civil Court.
(3.) Section 331 of the Act provides: "Cognizance of suits etc. under this Act- (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) take cognizance of a suit, application or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suits, applications, or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof. Explanation.- If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (i) an objection that a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II, or as the case may be, a civil court, which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suits, application or, proceedings, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been consequent failure of justice." 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 law which seek to oust the jurisdiction of Civil Court needs 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.;