Summary
A civil suit seeking cancellation of a subsequent sale deed for fraud and misrepresentation, with an ancillary injunction, was maintainable despite the agricultural character of the land. The purchaser relied on earlier sale deeds from the same vendor and did not need a declaration of tenure-holder status or title. Section 331 did not oust civil jurisdiction over that cancellation relief; cases requiring a revenue declaration were distinguished.
Issues
- Whether section 331 barred a civil suit for cancellation of subsequent sale deeds where no declaration of tenure-holder title was necessary.
Held
- Exclusion of civil jurisdiction must be expressly or necessarily established and strictly construed. The relief actually required, rather than the agricultural nature of the land alone, determines whether the statutory bar applies. (¶ 5–7)
- The plaintiff relied on the vendor’s earlier 1998 sale deeds and sought cancellation of the later instruments for fraud and misrepresentation, not declaration of its own title or tenure-holder status. It could not be forced to seek a revenue declaration unnecessary to its case. (¶¶ 7, 10)
- Civil cancellation relief remains available where prima facie title is not under cloud. Where declaration of title or tenure-holder status is necessarily required, revenue jurisdiction governs; cancellation may then be merely redundant. (¶ 8–9)
- Kamla Prasad involved disputed co-ownership and changes in revenue records requiring determination by the revenue court, and did not control this case. (¶ 11)
Result
Both appeals dismissed without costs. Orders upholding maintainability of the civil suit affirmed; the underlying fraud and cancellation merits were not finally adjudicated.