SHRI RAM Vs. SARDAR ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are auction purchasers of the disputed agricultural property which was sold for recovery of the arrears of an Agricultural Income Tax by the respondents nos. 3 and 4. The auction sale was challenged on various grounds. It was alleged that the auction was fraudulent. The sanction for sale was obtained in respect of a different set of plots, whereas that sanction was fraudulently used for the plots in dispute. The other objection was that the Tehsildar, who had conducted the sale, had no authority under rule 205-A framed urder the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,

(2.) THE courts below found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. THE present appeal has been filed by the defendants-auction-purchasers.

(3.) THE other objection on the ground of maintainability of the suit was that as the sale was alleged to be void, no suit need have been filed in the Civil Court and a simple suit for declaration and possession in the Revenue Court was maintainable. In that view the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. I am not prepared to accept that argument as well. THEre are two reasons for the same. Firstly that the suit was specifically maintainable in view of Rule 285-K mentioned above. Wherever there was a fraud, the transaction was void. THE Rule provided that a suit in Civil Court was to be filed. THErefore, such a suit could not have been maintainable in a Revenue Court. THE second reason is that in the instant case Revenue Court had no authority to declare the sales conducted under the provisions of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act void. In appendix 3 of Rules, framed under Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and schedule 3 of the Act itself there is no such entry where such a suit could be maintainable. THE last argument of the learned counsel was that no fraud was proved and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. This argument is also not tenable. In para 11 of the judgment of the lower appellate court it has been clearly found that the sanction of the Commissioner was obtained for some other plots of lesser area, and it was also not for this particular auction. On the basis of that sanction the plots in dispute were sought to be sold in the present auction. No doubt such an auction would be void, but it would also amount to a fraud. Under the circumstances the suit was maintainable and has rightly been decreed. Even otherwise if the suit was maintainable on several grounds, including one of fraud, that suit could not have been filed before the Revenue Court. THE suit was maintainable only in Civil Court. In such a case even if fraud was not proved and other grounds were proved, the suit could be decreed by the Civil Court and there will be no mistake of jurisdiction.