Sangam Lal Shukla vs Smt. Rekha Mani and Another

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard Shri H.N. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the Respondents at the admission stage.

This is Plaintiff''s second appeal. Original Suit No. 205 of 2002 instituted by Plaintiff-Appellant against Defendants-Respondents for cancellation of a sale deed was decreed on 12.10.2006 by Civil Judge (J.D.), Chitrakoot and the sale deed executed on 24.9.2001 and registered on 26.9.2001 was cancelled. Against the said judgment and decree Defendant-Respondent No. 1-Smt. Rekha Mani who is wife of Appellant, filed Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2006. The appeal was allowed on 15.1.2009 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Chitrakoot, judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the Suit for cancellation of the Sale deed was dismissed.

Plaintiff - Sangam Lal is son of Defendant-Respondent No. 2 - Ram Ashrey Shukla and husband of Defendant Respondent No. 1 - Rekha Mani. The sale deed in question had been executed by Sri Ram Ashrey Shukla father of the Plaintiff Appellant in favour of Smt. Rekha Mani who is second wife of Sangam Lal, Plaintiff i.e. daughter-in-law of Ram Ashrey Shukla the executant of the sale deed.

The property sold was agricultural land. One of the grounds of challenge was that the property was ancestral hence Plaintiff had also share therein and in oral partition it had come in his exclusive share. In agricultural land of the father, son has got No. right in Uttar Pradesh. The nature of interest/right and manner of inheritance for agricultural lands is governed in Uttar Pradesh by U.P. Zamandari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and principles of Hindu Law or Muslim Law do not apply in this regard. Father of Plaintiff-Appellant is still alive and is Defendant-Respondent No. 2 in this Second Appeal. The sale deed was sought to be cancelled on the ground of coercion et cetra also.

The case of the Plaintiff was that his first wife had died hence he contacted second marriage with Defendant-Respondent No. 1 however, the relationship between him and his second wife became sour and several criminal cases were pending between the parties. The precise case of the Plaintiff was that First Information Report u/s 498-A of I.P.C. had been lodged against him and his father and under the pressure of the police sale deed dated 24.9.2001 was got executed (which was registered on 26.9.2001). Defendant No. 1 did not appear as witness as she was ill and on her behalf her father appeared as witness. The Trial Court held that under police pressure sale deed was executed.

I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant that the property was ancestral and in oral partition it had come to his share. In respect of agricultural land in U.P. principles of Hindu Law or Muslim Law do not apply. Land in dispute exclusively belonged to Ram Ashrey Shukla father of the Plaintiff-Appellant hence there was No. question of partition. Moreover name of Plaintiff was never recorded in the revenue records. Lower Appellate Court held that Ram Ashrey Shukla never made any complaint to the higher authorities that he had been forced to execute the sale deed by police authorities of the police station where F.I.R. had been loged.

I do not find least error in the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court. Plaintiff had absolutely No. right over the land in dispute. His father never challenged the sale deed. Even allegation of coercion does not stand proved.

Accordingly, there is No. merit in the Second Appeal hence it is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure