Summary
The Supreme Court held that a pending civil suit to cancel a sale deed allegedly executed by fraud and impersonation does not abate under Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 when the area is notified for consolidation. Such a deed is voidable, not void; it binds the consolidation authorities until a civil court sets it aside, so Section 49 does not bar the civil court's jurisdiction. The special leave petition was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether, once a notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 is published, a pending civil suit for cancellation of a sale deed allegedly executed by fraud and impersonation abates under Section 5(2)(a), and whether the civil court's jurisdiction is barred by Section 49.
Provisions considered
- Section 5(2)(a), U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954Once the area is notified, pending suits for declaration of rights in land, or for adjudication of rights that can be decided under the Act, abate on an order of the court. A suit to cancel a voidable sale deed falls outside this, because the consolidation authorities cannot cancel such a document. (¶¶ 2, 6, 10, 11)
- Section 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954The bar on civil court jurisdiction was held not to apply to a suit for cancellation of a sale deed alleged to be voidable for fraud. (¶¶ 1, 2, 11)
Held
- A transaction induced by fraud as to the contents of a document is voidable, not void. A fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document makes it void. (¶ 9)
- A voidable document stays in force until a competent civil court sets it aside, and it binds the consolidation authorities until then. The consolidation authorities have no power to cancel it, and a suit for its cancellation pending in a civil court does not abate. If a document is void, the consolidation authorities may disregard it and their jurisdiction becomes exclusive. (¶ 10)
- The allegation that the sale deed was executed by impersonation makes it voidable, not void. It therefore binds the consolidation authorities unless a civil court sets it aside, and neither Section 5(2)(a) nor Section 49 bars the civil court from trying the suit for its cancellation. (¶ 11)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed. The High Court's order restoring the suit to the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Laksar was upheld.