S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri. C.K. Rai, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri B.N. Upadhyaya learned Advocate in opposition thereof.
(2.) Challenge in this petition is the order passed by Board of Revenue by which second appeal filed by the defendant-respondent was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed. Plaintiff-petitioners filed suit for declaration of their rights on the ground that they are brothers of Ram Nandan and thus they being heirs entitled to succeed on r the death of Chameli who happened to be widow of Ram Nandan. Clam of plaintiff was resisted by the defendant on the ground that in their favour there is unregistered agreement to sale dated 20.6.1967 executed by Chameli and on that basis they are in possession and they are the owner of the land. Parties lead their evidences. Trial Court decreed the suit. Appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed. On filing second appeal they succeeded and thus this writ petition.
(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and on analysis of the arguments, there is no dispute about the fact that Chameli died issue less. The sole basis of the claim of the defendant was the unregistered agreement to sale which is said to have been executed by Chameli on 20.6.1967, in which it was said that an amount of Rs. 6,000/- was already given and Rs. 2,000/- will be given at the time of registration. Trial Court has given finding that none of the marginal witnesses was examined. A clear finding has been given by the Trial Court and the 1st appellate Court that unregistered agreement to sale on the basis of which defendant claims right is a forged document. Otherwise also unregistered agreement to sale or even registered agreement to sale cannot confer any rights on the claimant so long the sale deed is executed or competent Court directs for execution of the deed accepting the agreement to sale. Law is settled that agreement to sale do not confer any rights. A document which do not confer any rights on the defendant and it was established to be.forged document needed no cancellation, and therefore, Board of Revenue in taking view that go against the unregistered agreement to sale it is within the domain of the Civil Court has end. The Revenue Court is competent to grant declaration to a party in respect to agricultural piece of land, and therefore, there being no document of title in favour of the defendant if the Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court decreed the suit by recording required finding then it was not open for the Board of Revenue sitting in the 2nd appellate jurisdiction to set aside those judgements. Power of the 2nd Appellate Court is otherwise very limited and it has been said by this Court and the Apex Court that that is pari materia of section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. Unregistered agreement to sale having been found to be forged, there cannot be a question of law much less substantial question of law so as to entitle Board of Revenue to interfere. Board of Revenue appears to have gone wrong in holding that suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable and plaintiffs have not made out a case for declaration of their rights. The finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below has not been met and reversed by the 2nd Appellate Court and thus this Court is convinced that allowing of appeal by the Board of Revenue was clearly erroneous and the Board of Revenue has exceeded in its jurisdiction in allowing appeal.;