Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1970 DIGILAW 6 (ALL)

Marjadi v. Umapati

1970-01-02

J.S.TRIVEDI

body1970
ORDER J.S. Trivedi, J. - This is a Plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Addl. Civil Judge, Jaunpur, allowing, the appeal and dismissing the Plaintiffs' suit on the ground that the suit was not cognizable by the civil court. 2. Plaintiff No. 1, Smt. Marjadi and Plaintiffs 2 and 3 who claim to be the transferees of Smt. Marjadi's property filed the suit against Defendants Respondents 1 to 4 for cancellation of a sale deed purported to have been executed on 16-6-62 in respect of the property of Smt. Marjadi, with the allegation that the said sale deed was not executed by Smt. Marjadi but was executed by an imposter who personated as Smt. Marjadi. It was further alleged that the effect of the execution of the sale deed and the order of the mutation court had created a cloud on the title of the Plaintiffs. Hence the necessity for cancellation of the sale deed. The Defendant Respondents denied that the sale deed was not executed by the real Smt. Marjadi. According to them, the Plaintiff No. 1 was not the widow of Ram Sajiwan and the real Smt. Marjadi. The question of jurisdiction of the civil court was also raised. 3. The trial court decreed the Plaintiffs' suit for cancellation of the sale deed holding that the sale deed was not executed by Smt. Marjadi, the owner of the property in suit. A direction to the Sub-Registrar was also issued accordingly. The trial court also directed the issue of a show cause notice against the persons who had perjured as to why they should not be proceeded with for perjury and fabricating false evidence. In appeal the lower appellate court allowed the appeal on the preliminary question of jurisdiction and dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit folding that the suit was cognizable by the revenue court. Hence this second appeal. 4. The judgment of the lower appellate court dismissing the suit on the ground that the same was not cognizable by the civil court is, on the face of it, wrong. If the lower appellate court had found that the suit was instituted in the wrong court the proper course for it was to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court Under Order 7, Rule 10, CPC . 5. If the lower appellate court had found that the suit was instituted in the wrong court the proper course for it was to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court Under Order 7, Rule 10, CPC . 5. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-6-62 the sale deed in question was executed by one purporting to be Smt. Marjadi, widow of Ram Sajiwan. Thereafter, on 21-6-62, four sale deeds in respect of various properties were executed by Plaintiff No. 1 in favour of Plaintiffs 2 and 3 and Defendants 5 to 7. The Defendant Respondents applied for mutation on the basis of the sale deed dated 16-6-62. The Plaintiffs filed objections but ultimately the mutation was ordered in favour of the Defendant Respondents. It became necessary for the Plaintiffs thereafter to file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 16-6-62, which created a cloud on the title of the Plaintiffs. 6. Section 331 of the UP ZA and LR Act, which has for all these years been a source of litigation and harassment to the litigant public, is as under: Except as provided by or under this Act, no court, other than a court mentioned in col. 4 of Schedule 2, shall notwithstanding any thing contained in the CPC take cognizance of any suit, application or proceeding mentioned in col. 3 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceeding based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. Schedule 2 deals with the proceedings and the nature of suits and the courts before which the suit or proceedings can by instituted. A suit for cancellation of deed is neither provided in any of the sections of the Act nor in the list of proceedings given in Schedule 2 of the Act. The most controversial part of S, 331 is the latter part which applies to suits or applications based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained. The cause of action in the present suit was the execution of the sale deed. The mutation and dispossession may be the subsequent causes of action entitling a party to a relief provided in the Act. That however could not be the principal cause of action. The cause of action in the present suit was the execution of the sale deed. The mutation and dispossession may be the subsequent causes of action entitling a party to a relief provided in the Act. That however could not be the principal cause of action. In &am Awalamb v. Jata Shankar 1968 AWR 731 FB it was laid down that where on the basis of cause of action the main relief is cognizable by the civil court, the suit would be cognizable by the civil court. Even in the Full Bench case referred to above it was observed that it is difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule in respect of matters where some relief is cognizable by a revenue court. 7. Section 331 of the ZA and LR Act is in the nature of an exception to Section 9 Code of Civil Procedure. The normal rule of interpretation has been that if all the reliefs claimed could not be granted by a court of exclusive jurisdiction, the suit would be cognizable by the civil court. That rule however stands modified by Section 331. The modification stands in a state of confusion on account of the bad drafting of the Act. While under the ZA Act, reliefs like cancellation of deed, demolition of buildings over encroached land and injunctions are not contemplated, these are indirectly sought to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the civil courts by the second part of Section 331. What special benefit the Legislature thought could be conferred on the litigant public by introducing the second part of Section 331 and excluding the jurisdiction of the civil courts which are the courts competent to try all civil suits is not indicated in the Act itself. While the principal duty of the State should be to discourage unnecessary litigation, the introduction of this section has only encouraged such litigation. The sooner Section 331 is amended the better it would be for the litigate public. It will also have the effect of reducing unnecessary litigations and arrears of this Court. Rule of law not only contemplates decisions according to the recognised judicial principles but envisages early disposal of disputes. If a statute is so defective that a litigant can not decide the forum of his suit, the litigation is bound to be prolonged. It will also have the effect of reducing unnecessary litigations and arrears of this Court. Rule of law not only contemplates decisions according to the recognised judicial principles but envisages early disposal of disputes. If a statute is so defective that a litigant can not decide the forum of his suit, the litigation is bound to be prolonged. A prolonged litigation in small matters gives rise to a feeling of frustration and shakes the confidence in the court of law. Loss of confidence in courts not only promotes a feeling of insecurity and absence of the rule of law, but encourages lawlessness. It is, therefore, essential for an efficient administration that the frame and language of a statute, in the matter of jurisdiction at least, should normally be free from ambiguity. 8. This appeal is allowed. The case is remanded to the lower appellate court for deciding the appeal in accordance with law. Costs will abide the result. If the court below comes to the conclusion that the sale deed had been obtained by impersonation, it will not fail to take action as suggested by the trial court.