BHUREY LAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BUDAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 19-8-96, annexure-4 to the writ peti tion by which the suit was held to be abated.

(2.) I have heard counsels for the parties and find no merit in this writ petition. The question in the case is whether the suit was liable to abate under Section 5/49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit in the Civil court praying for cancellation of a sale-deed. True copy of the plaint is an-nexure-2 to the writ petition. The allega tions in the plaint are that a farzi sale-deed was executed by a person claiming to be Rajendra, although Rajendra had died. Hence in substance, the allegation in the plaint was that an imposter had executed the sale-deed. It is settled law that jurisdiction depends on the allegations in the plaint. According to the plaint allegations the sale deed was wholly void since an imposter had executed it, and was not merely voidable.