Suit For Cancellation Of Will Before Civil Court Maintainable; Section 331 UPZA Act Does Not Oust Its Jurisdiction: Allahabad HC

The Court explained that Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZA Act) makes the phrase ''cause of action'' as pivotal point for determining the jurisdiction of civil or revenue court to entertain a particular action.

A Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed, “Section 331 of the Act along with Explanation cannot be read so as to oust the jurisdiction of civil court if the primary relief on the same cause of action can be granted by the civil court notwithstanding the fact that consequential relief or ancillary relief flowing out of the main relief, the grant of which also becomes necessary, can be granted by revenue court alone.”

Advocate Shikha Singh appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Ajit Kumar represented the respondent.

The respondent had challenged the validity of a Will allegedly signed by his father (deceased) in favour of the wife of his real brother (appellant). The Will in question concerned the ownership of agricultural land, among other plots, which was allegedly bequeathed to the wife of the appellant fraudulently.

The trial court held that the Will was fraudulent and void. This decision was upheld by the first appellate court, leading to the filing of a second appeal.

It was argued that the suit was barred by Section 331 of the UPZA Act claiming that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction, as the matter concerned agricultural land. It was also contended that the Will was valid under Section 169 of the UPZA Act and that the respondent, not being recorded in the revenue records at the time, had no standing to challenge the Will.

The High Court explained that the expression ''any relief'' used in Section 331 of the UPZA Act would not only mean the relief claimed but would also include any relief arising out of the cause of action which led the plaintiff to invoke the jurisdiction of a court of law.

The Court remarked, “The law relating to right, title and interest over the agricultural land is contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which is a complete Code by itself and the Schedule-II to it enumerates the suits etc., the cognizance of which is to be taken of by the revenue courts.”

The Bench stated that the UPZA Act being a special Act would prevail over the general law. Although the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is ousted, the Court explained the relief can be granted by the special court conferred with jurisdiction to grant such reliefs.

“In Section 331 of the Act which specifically ousts the jurisdiction of other courts in respect of all suits, applications etc., enumerated in Schedule II, the main emphasis is on the words cause of action and any relief,” the Court stated.

However, since a plea under Section 331 was not substantially raised before the courts below, the Bench explained that the same could not be allowed to be raised before the High Court as well.

Consequently, the Court held that “the suit for cancellation of the Will was very much maintainable before the civil court.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Mangoo Singh & Ors. v. Ram Autar (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:133948)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Shikha Singh, Ajay Shankar, Alrafio Basir, D.K. Dwivedi, R.C.Tiwari, Shashi Kumar Dwivedi and Triveni Shankar

Respondent: Advocates Ajit Kumar, Kiran Kumar Arora and Rahul Sahai

Click here to read/download the Order