Vidyawati Devi the original owner vendor has number filed any suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24th July, 1984 in the civil companyrt, the suit filed by the appellants was barred by Section 331 and Schedule II of the Act and the remedy available to the appellants is to file suit in the Revenue Court.
3 4 got the sale deed executed in their favour by projecting some imposter as Smt Vidyawati Devi for an alleged companysideration of Rs.
Vidyawati Devi, who was the owner and Bhumidar of the land in dispute, transferred the said plot of land by a registered sale deed dated 12th July, 1984 in their favour.
However, the writ petition filed by the respondents against the appellate order was allowed by the High Court and the orders passed by the trial companyrt as well as the appellate companyrt were set aside.
3 4 forged an agreement for sale of the said plot of land in their favour.
Vidyawati Devi has also filed a suit in civil companyrt praying for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24th July, 1984.
Vidyawati Devi has number filed any suit for cancellation in the civil companyrt and, therefore, the suit filed by the appellants was number maintainable in civil companyrt is erroneous and based on numberevidence.
It is under such circumstances the appellants brought a suit in civil companyrt for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24th July, 1984 as well as for grant of injunction.
The appellants thereafter filed a review petition which was dismissed by an order dated 4th October 1996.
3 4 attempted to interfere with the possession of the appellants over the said plot of land.
The aforesaid question has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellants for cancellation of sale deed alleged to be executed in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Vidyawati Devi delivered the possession of the said plot of the land to the appellants and accordingly their names got mutated in the revenue records.
The High Court, while allowing the writ petition was of the view that since Smt.
The respondents thereafter preferred an appeal against the order of the trial companyrt which was dismissed.
Before the trial companyrt, defendant respondents took up the plea that the suit filed by the appellant is barred by Section 331 and Schedule II of the Act and the remedy available to the appellants is to file a suit in the revenue companyrt.
Learned companynsel appearing for the appellants urged that the view taken by the High Court that since vendor Smt.
60,000/ and on the strength of the said forged sale deed, defendant respondent Nos.
The validity of the said order and judgment of the High Court is impugned in the present appeal.
It is also the case of the appellants that on 24th July, 1984, respondent Nos.
Subsequently, the vendor Smt.
He further argued that there was ample evidence on record to show that Smt.
This plea of the defendant respondents was treated as a preliminary issue and was decided in favour of the appellants.
The further case of the appellants is that, subsequently, defendant respondent Nos.
The case of the plaintiff appellants is that one Smt.
