Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) RAISING a short controversy relating to the jurisdiction of Court to entertain the suit filed by the petitioner in respect of agricultural land described at the foot of the plaint for cancellation of sale deed dated 4.1.1971, will lie before Civil Court or before Revenue Court.
(2.) PLAINTIFF , the petitioner, instituted original suit No. 432 of 1995 on the allegation that his father was a recorded tenure holder of four plots described at the foot of the plaint and after his death which took place about fifteen years ago, he is the sole surviving heir and legal representative and has inherited the said plots and is in occupation thereof. In the month of April, the defendants threatened the plaintiff to evict him on the ground that he has purchased the property in dispute by means of sale deed dated 4.1.1971, thus, the cause of action to file the suit arose. The cancellation of the sale deed was sought for on the ground that the said sale deed was never executed by his father nor does it contain his thumb impression. In any case, the said sale deed was never acted upon. The suit is being contested by denying the plaint allegations. It has been stated that the said sale deed is a valid document and has been acted upon. The property in dispute was purchased after payment of sale consideration and the possession was delivered by the vendor Sukhdev to them and they are in actual physical possession of the disputed plots. The vendor Sukhdev has died long ago and the plaintiff had the knowledge of the sale deed. The suit is barred by time. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were struck. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 to the effect whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit were struck and have been decided as preliminary issues. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 28th of November, 2007 decided both the issues in favour of the plaintiff which was contested in revision No. 9 of 2008 filed by the defendants. The revision has been allowed by the judgment and decree dated 4th of September, 2008 holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;