T.S. Misra, J. - (1.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit which has given rise to this appeal for cancellation of sale-deed dated 10th March. 1967 executed by him in favour of the defendant whereby the agricultural plots mentioned in para 1 of the plaint were sold to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had not paid any sum to him prior to the presentation of the sale-deed for registration and that even before the Sub-Registrar he had given him a sum of Rs. 1,000/- which he took back as soon as he came out of the office of the Sub-Registrar after presenting the document for registration. He further alleged that he had not put the defendant to possession over the plots in question and in fact he harvested the crop standing on the plots even after the execution of the document. The defendant, however, subsequently raised dispute with regard to those plots and tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff hence proceedings under S. 145, Cr.P.C. were initiated and as those proceedings culminated in favour of the defendant he instituted the suit for the said relief.
(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant denying the various averments made by the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed. Against that decision the defendant preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. The defendant has now come up to this Court on second appeal.
(3.) It appears that before the execution of the sale-deed the plaintiff had applied for the grant of certificate commonly called 'Bhumidhari Sanad', and accordingly the Sanad dated 27th Feb., 1967 (Ex. 1) was granted. On the grant of this certificate the plaintiff became the Bhumidhar of the plots of land mentioned therein, Thereafter he executed the sale-deed on 10th March, 1967. A codicil was also executed by him subsequently which was also got duly registered for rectifying a clerical error which had crept in the original sale-deed. In the deed plot No. 1201 was mentioned as plot No. 1271. This error was rectified by that codicil. It seems that after the execution of the sale-deed an application was moved on 20th Sept., 1961 by Nattha the plaintiff for cancellation of the Sanad. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 11th Dec., 1969 (Ex. 3) cancelled the Sanad. The suit was thereafter filed on 9th Feb., 1970 for cancellation of the sale-deed. The appellate Court below had found that a sum of Rs. 1,500/- out of the sale consideration had not been actually paid by the purchaser the defendant to the seller, the plaintiff, but he was of the view that this non-payment of a part of the sale consideration would not affect the validity of the sale. The appellate Court below, however, cancelled the sale-deed on the ground that the Sanad whereby the plaintiff had become the Bhumidhar of the plots in question had been subsequently cancelled. The plaintiff was thus sirdar of those plots and as the sale related to sirdari land the transaction was invalid and the sale-deed was, therefore, liable to be cancelled. It appears that a sum of Rs. 249.40 was deposited while making an application for grant of Sanad. The Asstt. Collector in his order dated 11th Dec., 1969 observed that sum of Rs. 256.70 should have been deposited instead of Rs. 249.40 and as there was deficiency in making the deposit the Sanad should not have been granted. He, therefore, cancelled the Sanad. The appellate Court below was of the view that no exception could be taken to the order of the Assistant Collector cancelling the Sanad which was issued wrongly against the provision of law. This finding recorded by the appellate Court below was challenged before me. From the facts stated herein-above it turns out that the sale-deed was executed after obtaining a Bhumi-dhari Sanad. That Sanad was obtained by Nattha the plaintiff. He had paid the amount of Rs. 249.40 for obtaining the Sanad. This Sanad was granted under S. 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Sanad was cancelled under S. 137-A of the Act on the ground that instead of depositing Rs. 256.70 a sum of Rs. 249.40 had been deposited. In other words there was a deficiency of Rs. 7.30. Under S. 137-A of the Act a certificate granted under S. 137 may be cancelled by the Asstt. Collector for any of the reasons mentioned in sub cls. (a), (b) and (c) thereof. It reads as under : "137-A. (1) A certificate granted under S. 137 may on the application of the State Government or any person interested be cancelled or modified by the Assistant Collector for any of the following reasons, namely : (a) that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Asstt. Collector of something material to the case; (b) that the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; (c) that a decree or order passed by a competent Court in a suit or other proceeding with respect to the holding for which certificate has been granted shows that the applicant was not entitled to the certificate." Clauses (b) and (c) of S. 137-A obviously do not apply. Under cl. (a) a certificate may be cancelled if it was obtained fraudulently by the making of false suggestion or by the concealment from the Asstt. Collector of something material to the case. In the instant case no false suggestion and no concealment of something material to the case was made while obtaining the Sanad. It would not be a case of obtaining certificate by fraudulent means. The fraud must have been perpetrated either by making of a false suggestion to the Asstt. Collector or by the concealment of something material to the case. A perusal of the order of the Asstt. Collector shows that the deposit was short by a sum of Rs. 7.30. This cannot be said to be a concealment of something material to the case nor can this be said to be making a false suggestion to the Asstt. Collector. Under R. 116 of the U. P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) an application for the acquisition of Bhumidhari rights under Section 134 shall state amongst other particulars the Khasra number of plots, area of each plot and the land revenue payable for the holding and the total amount deposited by the applicant in the Treasury and the date of deposit. The application is required to be accompanied by Treasury Challan showing that the amount had been deposited. Rule 118 requires the Assistant Collector to scrutinise the application and examine on oath the applicant or any other person whose evidence he considers necessary. It also requires the Assistant Collector to make a memorandum of the statements recorded by him and sign it. Clause (3) of R. 118 provides that if the Assistant Collector finds that the amount deposit-ed is less than ten times the land revenue payable or deemed to be payable for the holding or the share of the applicant in the holding he shall order the deposit of the balance on the date to be fixed by him. Cl. (4) of R. 118 says that where the Asstt. Collector is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to a declaration he shall grant a declaration to that effect. The certificate in the instant case was granted by the Asstt. Collector. It is to be presumed that he must have before granting the certificate scrutinised the application. He must have then been satisfied that the correct amount had been deposited otherwise he should have asked the applicant to make good the deficiency by depositing the balance ion such date as he would have fixed for the same. The Assistant Collector while cancelling the Sanad did not say that the applicant had not mentioned the land revenue payable in respect of each plot of land. It was, therefore, not a case of making a false suggestion or concealing something material to the case. Clause (a), therefore, did not apply. The Assistant Collector while cancelling the' Sanad did not say that the Sanad was obtained fraudulently. Thus neither cl. (a) nor (b) nor (c) of S. 137-Applied to the facts of the case. The Assistant Collector could not, therefore, cancel the Sanad. The order dated 11th Dec., 1969 of cancelling the Sanad was, therefore, without jurisdiction.;