- (1.) The applicants are assailing the orders passed by the courts below arising from Original Suit No. 717 of 2012 (Kashi Prasad and another vs. Sanjay Sharma and others) whereby, the issue pertaining to jurisdiction was decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the applicant/defendants holding that the civil court would have jurisdiction and not the revenue court. The facts in brief is that plot no. 187 ad-measuring 1.67/8 acres situated in village Mahimapur, District Varanasi, was in the joint tenure holder of the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/respondents, each having 50% share in the property. Both plaintiff/respondent, as well as, defendant/respondents were entered as joint tenure holder in the revenue records.
(2.) Village Mahimapur was brought under consolidation proceedings, upon conclusion of the proceedings, the competent authority i.e. Consolidation Officer recorded plaintiff/respondent, and, defendant/respondents as joint tenure holders each having 50% share, which attained finality upon publication of notification on 1 September 1988 under Section 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953(Act 1953). The applicants purchased the plot in dispute from the defendant/respondents, namely Ghurey Lal and Krishna Prasad through a registered sale deed dated 8 August 1996 to the extent of their share. The competent authority, thereafter on 1 October 1996 mutated the name of the applicants in the revenue record by expunging the name of the vendors viz Ghurey Lal and Krishna Prasad. The applicants since then are in possession of the suit property to the extent of their shares.
(3.) After a lapse of 16 years, the plaintiff/respondent instituted the present suit on 15 May 2012 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi to declare the sale-deed dated 8 August 1996, null and void. The applicants contested by filing written statement, interalia, raising the plea of maintainability of the suit before the civil court in view of Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950(Act 1950). Accordingly, issue no. 10 was framed by the trial court. The issue was decided in the negative holding that the suit was not barred by Section 331 and would be maintainable before the civil court. Aggrieved, the applicants preferred a revision before the District Judge, Varanasi, the revisional court relying upon the documents filed by the plaintiff/respondent being Akar Patra-23, issued during consolidation proceeding and order dated 17 May 2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer on an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent purporting to be under Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation Rules 1954, whereby, the names of the defendant/respondents Ghurey Lal and Krishna Prasad was ordered to be expunged from the revenue records and the names of plaintiff/respondents were ordered to be entered. The revisional court affirmed the order of the trial court.;