RAMA GANGWAR Vs. SHANKER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Kokila Devi instituted O.S. No. 343 of 2000 against Smt. Rama Gangwar, petitioner No. 1, Ganga Devi since deceased and survived by petitioner Nos. 2/1 to 2/5, Charan Singh and Netram, who are respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in this writ petition. The suit is pending. The relief claimed in the suit was for cancellation of three sale deeds dated 01.10.1999 executed by the plaintiff in favour of Rama Gangwar, defendant-petitioner No. 1. In the plaint, it was stated that Shanker Lal was nephew of the plaintiff and she wanted to execute Will deed in favour of Shanker Lal and Shanker Lal's wife, however, after obtaining the khatauni, it transpired that her name had been expunged from the revenue record on the basis of sale deeds dated 01.10.1999 which she had never executed and she only signed/fixed her thumb impression on certain papers for some other purpose. The sale deeds pertained to agricultural land. After filing of the suit, plaintiff died. Shanker Lal respondent No. 1 filed application for substitution stating therein that plaintiff had executed a Will in his favour. The application was allowed.

(2.) In the suit issues were framed. Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 9 were decided as preliminary issues by the trial court/First Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Pilibhit on 30.04.2011 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit was maintainable before civil court and it was not barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Against the said order, defendants filed Civil Revision No. 25 of 2012, which was dismissed by A.D.J. Court No. 1 Pilibhit on 18.10.2012, hence this writ petition.

(3.) Defendants-Petitioners had contended that the suit as filed was not maintainable before Civil Court as it was basically a suit for declaration of rights in agricultural land. It was also contended that Shanker Lal, who had got himself substituted on the basis of Will had no right to continue to the suit in the civil court as the very basis of his substitution i.e. Will was denied by the defendants and that too required a declaration. It was also contended that after execution of the sale deed name of the defendant No. 1 had been mutated in the revenue record hence suit even by original plaintiff was not maintainable.