DEVENDRA Vs. LALMATI AND 3 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both the cases have common facts and raises common question of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent in both the cases is Smt. Lalmati Devi. Her case is that the suit properties exclusively belonged to her husband Lattu. His name was duly recorded in the revenue records in respect of agricultural lands owned by him. Lattu died issue-less and intestate on 04.01.2013. Consequently, she inherited all the properties left behind by him. According to the plaintiff, about two years before his death, her husband fell seriously ill. Since they were issue-less, therefore, they placed complete faith and reliance upon Devendra, their pattidaar (one of the defendant in both the suits). He taking benefit of the trust reposed in him by the plaintiffs' husband succeeded in procuring a sale deed dated 30.05.2012 in his favour and his brother Pawan as well as a Will dated 02.06.2012. She came to know of the above two documents after the death of her husband when Devendra and his brother Pawan claimed title on basis of these documents in question. The specific case of the plaintiff is that she is in possession of all the properties left behind by her deceased husband. Accordingly, she instituted (i) Original Suit No. 803 of 2014 for cancellation of sale deed dated 30.05.2012 and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession over the suit properties and (ii) Original Suit No. 1120 of 2014 for cancellation of will dated 02.06.2012 purportedly executed by her husband in favour of defendant Devendra and Pawan.

(3.) Devendra filed separate applications under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. in both the suits praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suits are barred from the cognizance of civil court in view of Sec. 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (for short the Act). In original Suit No. 803 of 2014, by order dated 17.05.2016, the trial court rejected the application. The trial court held that the husband of the plaintiff was recorded tenure holder. Had there been no sale-deed, the plaintiff would have inherited the suit property. Consequently, declaration of title to the suit property is not involved. The suit for cancellation of sale deed based on fraud and misrepresentation would be maintainable before the civil court. Aggrieved thereby, Civil Revision No. 250 of 2016 has been filed by Devendra (defendant no.1).