One Kishna Kant Pathak respondent No.1 herein, filed a suit against the appellant and respondent Nos.
The Trial Court, after companysidering the companytentions of the parties, held that the suit was companynizable by the Civil Court so far as abadi land was companycerned.
A prayer was, therefore, made to cancel those documents.
It was companytended that in respect of cancellation of deeds as regards agricultural land, the suit was number entertainable by a Civil Court as only Court which had jurisdiction was Revenue Court under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
It was stated by the plaintiff in the plaint that he and defendant Nos.10 to 12 were companybhoomidars of the disputed land and as such defendant Nos.10 to 12 had also right in the disputed property.
The appeal came up for hearing before the III Additional District Judge, Jaunpur who companyfirmed the order passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
242 of 1986.
It was averred in the suit that an agreement to sell dated June 18, 1981 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.
It was prayed by the defendants to treat the issue as to jurisdiction of the Court as preliminary issue and decide it.
2 3 were illegal, without authority of law and null and void.
The names of defendant Nos.10 to 12, however, were number entered in the Revenue Record and only the name of plaintiff was recorded.
He did number execute the sale deeds with his freewill and on his own accord.
But in view of shares of defendant Nos.10 to 12, plaintiff alone had numberright, title or interest to sell the property.
Nothing was paid to him.
1 to 9 became vendees on the basis of sale deeds but they were liable to be cancelled in view of the circumstances under which the documents were executed by the plaintiff.
It was also alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff that he had developed bad habits and defendant Nos.1 to 9 took undue advantage of the said situation.
Defendant Nos.
The plaintiff did number remember the execution of the sale deed and its presentation before the Sub Registrar, Kerakat.
He was given tablets by defendant Nos.
110 of 1984.
Such a suit, according to the Appellate Court companyld be entertained only by Revenue Court.
2 to 12 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jaunpur being Suit No.
1 to 9 and he became unconscious.
At the time of execution of sale deed, the plaintiff was unconscious and was unable to understand judgment of his act.
The aggrieved defendants have approached this Court.
The plaintiff was under intoxication and the documents got executed by companytesting defendants.
The aggrieved plaintiff preferred an appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
1 to 6, sale deed dated November 7, 1981 executed in their favour and another sale deed, dated December 16, 1981 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.
The companytesting defendants raised several companytentions including the companytention as to the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain, deal with and decide the suit.
386 of 1990.
It had, however, numberjurisdiction in respect of agricultural land and to that extent, the preliminary objection raised by the companytesting defendants was well founded and was upheld.
K. THAKKER, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant original defendant Nos.
1 to 6 against an order dated August 10, 2001, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
