Dilip Gupta - (1.) THESE two second appeals have been filed by the defendants for setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned IInd Additional District Judge. Bijnor by which Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1990 and Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1990 that had been filed for setting aside the judgment and decrees of the learned Munsif were dismissed.
(2.) ORIGINAL Suit No. 504 of 1985 and ORIGINAL Suit No. 505 of 1985 had been filed for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 28th June, 1995, purported to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants in respect of their half share in the plots in dispute and for possession of the sugar cane crops standing over the land by partition. In both the suits the allegations of the plaintiffs were common. It was asserted that the defendants had denied the rights of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute on the basis of the sale deeds dated 28th June, 1985, purported to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants ; that they had never executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendants and the sale deeds were forged and fictitious documents which do not bear the signatures or the thumb impression of the plaintiffs and as both the parties had sown and grown the crops, it should be partitioned. The defendants filed written statements stating that the names of the plaintiffs had earlier been mutated in the revenue records due to mistake and the plaintiffs had executed the sale deeds in their favour. It was further asserted that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it was barred under Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Both the suits were consolidated and ORIGINAL Suit No. 505 of 1985 was made the leading case. The learned Munsif by a common judgment partly decreed the suits holding that the respective sale deeds dated 28th June, 1985 had never been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants and the defendants had obtained the same from some impersonator. The sale deeds were, therefore, forged documents and were not binding on the plaintiffs and were, therefore, cancelled. The learned Munsif further held that the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit as it was not barred by Section 331 of the Act. The relief for partition of the crop was, however, denied. The defendants filed two civil appeals namely Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1990 and Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1990 against the aforesaid judgment and decree. These two civil appeals were dismissed by common judgment. Two second appeals have accordingly been filed by the defendants. I have heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Y. S. Bohra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 331 of the Act, the civil court could not have taken cognizance of the suits and, therefore, the judgments and decrees of the court below are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Ram and another v. 1st Additional District Judge and others, (2001) 3 SCC 24 and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Padarath and others v. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others, 1989 (1) AWC 290. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the suit was clearly maintainable and the finding recorded by both the courts below regarding maintainability of the suits does not suffer from any infirmity and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and others, AIR 1990 SC 540.;