'Voidable 'Sale Deed Binding On Consolidation Authorities Unless Cancelled By Civil Court: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that the voidable sale deed will be binding on the Consolidation Authorities unless it is set aside by a competent Civil Court and there would be no bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try a suit for cancellation of such a sale deed.
The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition assailing the correctness of the Order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, whereby Writ Petition filed by the Respondent- Plaintiff was allowed to hold that a suit for cancellation of a “voidable” sale deed relating to agricultural land pending in a Civil Court would not stand abated in terms of Section 5 (2) (a) of the Consolidation Act and the bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court’s under Section 49 of the Consolidation Act would not be applicable when the suit is for cancellation of a “voidable document”; as opposed to a “void document”.
The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amaullah observed, “sale deed…will be binding on the Consolidation Authorities unless it is set aside by a competent Civil Court and there would be no bar on jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try a suit for cancellation of such a sale deed.”
Brief Facts-
A dispute over agricultural land arose after the mother of Petitioner No. 1, falsely claimed inheritance and sold that land. The Respondent filed a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground of fraud. The Civil Court abated the suit under the Consolidation Act, and an appeal was dismissed. The Respondent then challenged it in the Uttarakhand High Court, which restored the Suit, ruling that a voidable sale deed due to fraud can still be challenged in Civil Court.
The Court said that the question that arose for its determination is related to the bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 5 (2) (a) read with Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954. The Court considered - whether, by virtue of Section 5 (2)(a), upon publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation Act, any pending Civil Suit for cancellation of a sale deed executed by fraud and impersonation, stands abated and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try such a suit is ousted in terms of Section 49 of the Consolidation Act?
The Court relied on the decision in Ningawwa v. Byrappa (1968) 2 SCR 797 where the Supreme Court made the distinction between ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ documents. The Court quoted, “The legal position will be different if there is a fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of the document but as to its character. The authorities make a clear distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof. With reference to the former, it has been held that the transaction is void, while in the case of the latter, it is merely voidable.”
The Court further mentioned the decision in Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1173 where according to the Court it was held, “a “voidable” document continues to be in force until it is set aside and such a document can only be set aside by a competent civil court. Further, such documents were held to be binding upon the Consolidation Authorities so long as they are not cancelled or set aside by a Court vested with the jurisdiction to do so.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Cause Title: Khursheed v. Shaqoor (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 764)