- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. This petition has been filed canvassing the validity of the judgment dated 24-1-1983 passed by the Revisional Court thereby allowing the revision and holding suit not maintainable in Civil Courts. As a necessary consequence, the judgment dated 22-8-1982 passed by Munsif Haveli, Varanasi in O. S. No. 141 of 1982 was reversed.
(2.) THE facts may be stated in brevity and with appropriateness and they are that petitioner Kishori Prasad Instituted a declaratory suit claiming that sale-deed executed on 17-4-1981 was void document and the same be declared as void and communication be made to be Registrar Varanasi accordingly. THE further relief claimed in the suit is for injunction and for possession. According to the plaint allegations, the land in dispute is a plot bearing No. 92/1 admeasuring 6 decimal situated in village Rohta, district Varanasi that one Hanuman arrayed as Defendant No. 2 was Bhumidhar of the land in dispute; that the claim of the plaintiff was based on alleged sale-deed dated 24- 11-1981 executed by Hanuman Defendant No. 2; that Smt. Munni Devi Defendant No. 1 and his two minor sons got a registered sale- deed executed in their favour on 17-4-1981 and obtained illegal possession of a portion of the property during the pendency of proceeding under Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. on 23-1-1982; that Defendant No. 2 never executed any sale-deed; that so-called sale-deed in favour of Defendant No. 1 is forged and fictitious document and it was induced by someone who personated himself to be Defendant No. 2; that the plaintiff gained knowledge of sale- deed on 30th January, 1982 and then cause of action arose for its cancellation. THE defendant in the written statement repudiated the plaint allegations. THE case taken in the written statement inter-alia was that they are in actual physical possession of the land in dispute; that the sale-deed in question was executed by Hanuman Defendant No. 2 who has also conceded this fact in his written statement filed in this case; that the defendant is a widowed lady and his two sons are minors and taking advantage of her widowed-hood, the plaintiff got a forged sale-deed executed on 24- 11-1981 with the avowed intention of usurping her land and the sale-deed is a forged paper; that the Defendant No. 1 and his two minor sons are recorded tenure holders in the revenue record and that the suit is not cognizable by Civil Court and it necessarily entails declaration of the title. The trial Court framed issue No. 3 relating to jurisdiction and decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff. The quintessence of what has been held by the trial Court is that the suit for declaration of disputed sale-deed dated 7-4-1981 was maintainable in Civil Court. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner preferred a revision which culminated in being allowed holding that the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court and the same was cognizable by the Revenue Court. A review was filed by the petitioner which ended up in being dismissed vide judgment and order dated 14-3-1983. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit for declaration that the sale-deed was null and void is maintainable in Civil Court notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was a recorded tenure-holder and on this ground the judgment of the Revisional Court holding that the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court, was liable to be set aside and the matter may be relegated to the Civil Court for adjudication. In aid of his contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance on various decisions. Sri Aditya Narain, in opposition, contended that the defendants are recorded tenure holders and the plaintiff is not either executant of the sale-deed or for matter of that a successor but happens to be a third party and the claim of the petitioner necessarily involves declaration of Bhumidhari rights. He further contended that the land was and continues to be recorded as Bhumidhari land and no declaration under Section 143 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act has been made and therefore, the suit lay in the Revenue Court as on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint, the document has the complexion of a void document.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered the arguments made across the bar in all its pros and cons. Before embarking upon methodical analysis of the arguments made across the bar, Section 31 of the Specific Reliefs Act and Section 331 (1) of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act may usefully be excerpted below. 31. When cancellation may be ordered.- (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation. Section 331 (1) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act is also being quoted below: 331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act.- (1) Except as provided by 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 any 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 insofar as they related to suits, application or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof. The decisions are dime (sic) a dozen on the point whether the suit is maintainable in Civil Courts or it lies in Revenue Courts depending upon peculiar facts of each particular case. It is well settled by catena of decisions that a suit for cancellation of voidable document is maintainable only in Civil Courts unless of course, the document is cancelled or adjudged to be void. The effect of such document cannot be whittled down or taken away and has a binding effect. Without dilating on the point at length, it bears no repudiation that so far as voidable documents are concerned, it is only the civil courts which have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit for cancellation of voidable document.;