LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-728

SMT. MAMTA DEVI Vs. KEDAR (DECEASED)

Decided On February 08, 2018
Smt. Mamta Devi Appellant
V/S
Kedar (Deceased) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.2015 by which the trial court decided issue no.6 in negative as well as the order dated 19.7.2017 by which the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the trial court has been dismissed.

(2.) Issue no.6 was framed on the plea raised by the petitioner, who is defendant no.3 in Original Suit No.332 of 1999 that the suit is barred by provisions of Sec. 331 of the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'). The case of the petitioner was that she had purchased the suit property from Krishna Ballabh Sahai, defendant no.1 by registered sale deed dated 30.3.2010. In pursuance thereof, her name was mutated in the revenue records in place of Krishna Ballabh Sahai. It was urged that the suit property is agricultural land and since name of the petitioner is duly recorded in the revenue records, consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents involves declaration of title, which can only be granted by the revenue court, thus, the suit filed before the civil court was barred by Sec. 331 of the Act.

(3.) The suit in question has been instituted by Kedar, who had since died and is now represented by his heirs and legal representatives. The relief claimed in the suit, as originally instituted, was for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.1998 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ghazipur on 29.9.1998. The said sale deed was supposedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1. The plaintiff also sought an injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering in his ownership rights as well as in his possession. In the alternative, a prayer was made that in case he is found out of possession, the same be also delivered to him. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no.1 transferred the suit property in favour of the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 30.2010. The plaintiff thereafter sought amendment of the plaint by introducing relief for cancellation of the said sale deed as well.