LAWS(ALL)-1988-9-35

RAM PADARATH Vs. SECOND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE SULTANPUR

Decided On September 26, 1988
RAM PADARATH Appellant
V/S
SECOND ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, SULTANPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Court and Revenue Court in entertaining a suit regarding agricultural land seems to have not ended during the past more than 40 years and the same has engaged the attention of several Division Benches. THE entertainability of the suit regarding cancellation of void instrument and documents has engaged the attention of various Benches in the past. This reference to the Full Bench has been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court who earlier after taking into consideration various decisions had taken the view in Indra Dev v. Smt. Ram Piari, 1982 (8) ALR 517, that such suits are cognizable by the civil court. THE reference in question was made on the ground that the Division Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri Prasad, 1981 AWC 469, holding the contrary view that such suits are cognizable by the revenue court was not taken notice of.

(2.) IN the case under reference relief of the cancellation of the sale-deed and permanent injunction was claimed on the ground that the same was executed by some one personating for the plaintiff who still continued to be tenure-holder in possession of the land in question.

(3.) SUIT for cancellation of a sale-deed or other instruments and documents are essentially suits of civil nature. Every suit of civil nature is cognizable by a civil court except cognizance of which is expressly or impliedly barred.