DWARIKA SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the District Judge, Jaunpur dated-12-1982 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), wherein the learned District Judge has upheld the judgment and order of the learned Munsif dated 15-2-1981 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition).

(2.) The factual gamut of the case is that one Smt. Patiraji, respondent No. 3, filed Civil Suit No. 112 of 1974 on 16-4-1974 before the learned Munsif for the cancellation of the sale-deed of the agricultural land dated 14-9-1973 which had subsequently been registered on 25-9-1973 on the ground that respondent No. 3, who owned and possessed the land in dispute, had never executed the said sale-deed and it had been obtained by playing fraud as some one had been imposted as the vendor to execute the said sale-deed. The present petitioner who was the defendant in the said suit raised the preliminary objection that the Civil Suit was not maintainable as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the matter and the Revenue Court was the only Forum to cancel the said sale-deed. The learned Munsif, vide his order dated 15-9-1981 rejected the preliminary objection raised by the present petitioner and held that the Civil Court was competent to entertain the said suit for cancellation of the sale-deed (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the Civil Revision No. 235 of 1981 before the learned District Judge questioning the correctness of the judgment of the learned Munsif. The learned District Judge dismissed the said revision vide his judgment and order dated 6-12-1982 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition): Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. N. Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos., 3 and 4.

(3.) It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case the Civil Suit is not maintainable as according to the allegations made in the plaint, the transaction is void and not voidable. In fact it is settled law that no order, transaction or contract can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud as fraud unravels everything.