Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. DHIRAJI versus RAM KARAN & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Dhiraji v. Ram Karan & Others - WRIT - B No. 4343 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1556 (31 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4343 of 2007

Smt. Dhiraji .....  Petitioner

versus

Ramkaran & others .....Respondents

****

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

Shri Triveni Shanker  has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 9.   Shri Anuj Kumar has accepted notice  on behalf of respondent No. 10.     Learned Standing Counsel has appeared for respondents no. 11, 12, 13 & 14.

Shri Faujdar Rai , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under section 229 B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 seeking declaration of Bhumidari  with regard to land in dispute.  He further contended that sale deed dated 23.12.1987  said to be executed by Deo Narayan   dated 23.1.1985 was  fictitious and void sale deed,   Deo Narayan never signed the sale deed and the said sale deed was executed by putting  some imposters.  He further contended that on an interim injunction  matter, the matter came to this Court in writ petition No. 1124 of 1997  Smt. Dhiraji versus the Board of Revenue  which writ petition was disposed of  on 29.11.2005  directing the parties to maintain status quo  in respect of the nature of the disputed plot and it was further directed that neither party shall dig the soil from the disputed land nor will alienate the property till the disposal of the suit.  The court further directed that  Trial Court shall try to dispose of the suit within a period of eight  months.  

One of the issue raised by the defendant before the Trial  Court was that the suit is not maintainable in  the Revenue Court and the plaintiff ought to have  filed suit in the Civil Court for challenging the validity of the sale deed.  The Trial Court accepted the said submission and took the view that the validity of the sale deed cannot be questioned in the Revenue Court and the Revenue Court cannot cancel the sale deed, hence, the suit was not dismissed as not maintainable.  The appeal was filed by the petitioner plaintiff which too was dismissed on 11.8.2006 taking some view that the suit was not maintainable in the Revenue Court.  

The submission of the petitioner's counsel is that second Appellate Court also dismissed the second appeal  holding that no substantial question of law is  involved and the appeal was dismissed for preliminary  hearing.  

Shri Faujdar  Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the allegations of the  plaintiff, it was clear case of the plaintiff that sale deed was void and Revenue Court had every jurisdiction to ignore  such a void sale deed which  needed no declaration or cancellation.  

Shri Triveni Shanker appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgement and  has placed  reliance  on the judgement of the Apex Court 2001(2) SC 573  Shri Ram  and another versus 1st Addl.Distt. Judge & Others and the judgement of this Court  reported in 1991  RD 297 Smt.Sita versus 3rd Addl. District Judge (H.C.L.B) and others; another judgement of this Court reported in 2004 (96) RD 436  Smt. Chunni Devi (Minor) and another versus Addl. District Judge and others.  

Considering the submissions raised by both the counsels  it does appear that substantial questions   had arisen i.e as to whether the suit was maintainable in the Revenue Court or not.  The Board of Revenue prima facie committed error  in dismissing the appeal holding that there is no substantial question of law.  The issue raised in the writ petition needs consideration.

Shri Triveni Shanker appearing for the respondents is allowed three weeks time to file a counter affidavit .  Two weeks for rejoinder affidavit thereafter.   The writ petition be listed thereafter for admission.  Looking to the nature of the dispute in the writ petition, the writ petition itself may be disposed of on the next date. The order as was earlier granted by this Court vide its judgement dated 29.11.2005 shall operate as interim measure  till the next date of listing.

Date 31.1.2007

IB


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.