KISHORI PRASAD Vs. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed canvassing the validity of the judgment dated 24-1-1983 passed by the Revisional Court thereby allowing the revision and holding suit not maintainable in Civil Courts. As a necessary consequence, the judgment dated 22-8-82 passed by Munsif Havali Varanasi in O.S. No. 141 of 1982 was reversed.

(2.) The facts may be stated in brevity and with appropriateness and they are that petitioner Kishori Prasad instituted a declaratory suit claiming that sale deed executed on 17-4-1981 was void document and the same be declared as void and communication be made to the Registrar Varanasi . accordingly. The further relief claimed in the suit is for injunction and for possession. According to the plaint allegations, the land in dispute is a plot bearing No. 92/1 admeasuring 6 decimal situated in village Rohta, District Varanasi that one Hanuman arrayed as defendant No. 2 was Bhumidhar of the land in dispute; that the claim of the plaintiff was based on alleged sale deed dated 24-11-81 executed by Hanuman defendant No. 2; that Smt. Munni Devi . defendant No. 1 and his two minor sons got a registered sale deed executed in their favour on 17-4-81 and obtained illegal possession of a portion of the property during the pendency of proceeding under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C. on 23-1-1982; that defendant No. 2 never executed any sale deed; that so called sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 is forged and fictitious document and it was induced by some one who personated himself to be defendant No. 2; that the plaintiff gained knowledge of sale deed on 30th Jan. 1982 and then cause of action arose for its cancellation. The defendant in the written statement repudiated the plaint allegations. The case taken in the written statement inter-alia was that they are in actual physical possession of the land in dispute; that the sale deed in question was executed by Hanuman defendant No. 2 who has also conceded this fact in his written statement filed in this case; that the defend ant is a widowed lady and his two sons are minors and taking advantage of her widowed-hood, the plaintiff got a forged sale deed executed on 24-11-81 with the avowed intention of usurping her land and the sale deed is a forged paper; that the defendant No. 1 and his two minor sons are recorded tenure holders in the revenue record and that the suit is not cognizable by Civil Court and it necessarily entails declaration of the title.

(3.) The trial Court framed issue No. 3 relating to jurisdiction and decided this issue in favour of the plaintiff. The quintessence of what has been held by the trial Court is that the suit for declaration of disputed sale deed dated 7-4-81 was maintainable in Civil Court. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner preferred a revision which culminated in being allowed holding that the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court and the same was cognizable by the Revenue Court. A review was filed by the petitioner which ended up in being dismissed vide judgment and order dated 14-3-1983.