A suit challenging a document as forged, fabricated, and void does not abate under Section 4(c).

The petitioner, plaintiff in Title Suit No. 929 of 2013 before the Sub-Judge-VIII, Saran at Chapra, sought a declaration that a sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 3 was false, fabricated, void, and not binding upon him, along with ancillary reliefs of injunction and costs.

During the pendency of the suit, consolidation proceedings were initiated in respect of the concerned land. The trial court, relying on the bar under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, held that it lacked jurisdiction and that the suit had abated by order dated 15 June 2017.

The plaintiff challenged that order before the Patna High Court.

Whether a civil suit seeking a declaration that a sale deed is forged, fabricated, void, and not binding upon the plaintiff abates under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act during pending consolidation proceedings?

Whether the trial court erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to proceed with Title Suit No. 929 of 2013?

Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act provides for abatement of suits concerning declaration or adjudication of rights and interests in land during the pendency of consolidation proceedings.

However, the court relied on Gopal Tewari v. Umakant Tewari, 2007 (4) PLJR 653, which distinguishes between documents that are inherently void and documents that are voidable and require judicial avoidance; suits seeking cancellation or avoidance of such documents remain within the jurisdiction of civil courts and do not abate.

The court also relied on Jagnarayan Singh v. Shubhraji Devi, 2010 (3) PLJR 452, holding that while suits seeking declaration of title and consequential reliefs generally abate, a suit seeking the independent relief of avoiding a document of title by declaring it void is to be decided by the civil court and does not abate.

The decision in Shanti Devi v. Tribeni Tiwary, 1993 (1) PLJR 81, as referred to in Jagnarayan Singh, was also relied upon.

The High Court examined the substance of the relief claimed rather than merely the form of the pleadings. The suit challenged the validity and binding nature of a specific sale deed on the allegation that it was false and fabricated, and sought judicial adjudication concerning that document.

Applying the distinction recognised in Gopal Tewari and Jagnarayan Singh, the court held that a claim requiring the civil court to declare or avoid the impugned document is not automatically ousted by Section 4(c).

Such relief is distinct from a suit principally seeking declaration of title or adjudication of rights in land, which would ordinarily fall within the consolidation authorities’ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the trial court committed a jurisdictional error in treating the suit as having abated merely because consolidation proceedings were pending.

It held that a suit seeking a declaration that a document is forged, fabricated, or void does not abate under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act.

The suit was consequently permitted to proceed before the civil court, and the proceeding was disposed of accordingly.