Sudhir Narain, J.— This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.2.2001 passed by respondents No.1 in revision holding that the suit is cognizable by the Civil Court. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent No.2 filed Suit No.1073 of 1993 in the court of Munsif, Deoria for cancellation of the gift deed dated 31.12.1985 and the sale deed dated 29.9.1987 in respect of the agricultural land with the allegations that the land in dispute is sir land. He was born prior to the enforcement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short the ‘Act’). He being a co-parcener acquired rights in the sir land by birth. His father Sadanand married Smt. Israji, who is stepmother of the plaintiff. She obtained the gift deed and sale deed fraudulently. His father had not put signature or thumb impression on the disputed sale deed and gift deed. The sale deed was without consideration. In any case he had no right to execute the sale deed in respect of his share over the land in dispute. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed written statement and it was denied that the gift deed and the sale deed were obtained fraudulently. One of the pleas raised was that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court framed various issues and issue No.5 was whether the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court came to the conclusion that the suit is barred by Section 331 of the Act and the revenue court can decide the validity of the gift deed and sale deed. The plaintiff-respondent filed revision against the said decision. The respondent No.1 has allowed the revision holding that Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant the reliefs claimed in it. 3. I have heard Sri R.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners who contended that the suit is not cognizable by the Civil Court in respect of the agricultural land. 4. The question is what is the main relief in the suit. In Ram Padarath and others v. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others, 1989 RD, 21, the Court held that the suit for cancellation of a sale-deed or other instruments and documents are essentially suits of civil nature and every suit of civil nature is cognizable by a civil court except cognizance of which is expressly or impliedly barred. In respect of the cancellation of the sale-deed, the suits are entertainable only by a civil court and no revenue court or any other court can entertain such a suit. 5. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under:-
"(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable, and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation."
6. In respect of voidable documents, it was observed as under:
"So far as voidable documents like those obtained by practising coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence etc., are concerned, their legal effect cannot be put to an end without its cancellation. But a void document is not required to be cancelled necessarily. Its legal effect if any can be put to an end to by declaring it to be void and granting some other relief instead of cancelling it. Once it is held to be void it can be ignored by any court or authority being of no legal effect or consequence. A document executed without free consent or one which is without consideration or the object of which is unlawful or executed by a person not competent to contract like a minor or in excess of authority would be a void document. In case it is in excess of authority it would be void to that extent only. There is presumption of due registration of a document and correctness of the facts mentioned in the same, but the said presumption is not conclusive and can be dislodged."
7. The question in the suit is as to when the plaintiff was born. If he was born prior to the enforcement of the Act, he will get right in respect of sir land by birth. The other plea raised in the plaint is that the gift deed and sale deed were obtained fraudulently. They do not contain the signatures of the vendor. The averments made in the plaint as a whole shows that the deeds have been challenged on the ground that it were void as well as voidable. On the basis of averments made and relief claimed in the suit, it is cognizable by the Civil Court. 8. In Shri Ram and another v. 1st Addl. District Judge and others
2001 (1) Supreme 706 : (
2001(19) LCD 879) their Lordships of the Supreme Court analyzing various decisions as to whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain suit for cancellation of the sale deed in respect of agricultural land, observed as under:
"On analysis of the decisions cited above, we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court, reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision
Lal Behari and others v. IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Mirzapur and others 1996 RD 156 wherein the Court held that the court has to examine what is the main relief appears from the contents of the plaint. If it is declaration of the rights in regard to the agricultural land, it is only the revenue court who will have jurisdiction but if the main relief in the suit is for cancellation of the document, the civil court will have the jurisdiction. Para 14 of the judgment lays down the following principle:-
"14. From the perusal of the pleadings in the present case the main relief appears to be the declaration sought by the plaintiffs whether defendant No.1 was the son of Bhola, who was competent to execute the sale-deed and the cancellation of the sale-deed was the consequential relief. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that in order to determine the precise nature of the action, the pleadings should be taken as a whole. If as, indeed, is done. The real point is not the stray or loose expressions which abound in inartistically drafted plaints, but the real substance of the case gathered by construing pleadings as a whole."
10. In the present case there are two main questions- one is whether the gift-deed and sale-deed are voidable on the basis of the allegations contained in the plaint, namely, fraud in obtaining the deeds. The documents were not duly executed by the vendor. They did not contain his signatures and was without jurisdiction and the second question is whether the plaintiff-respondent was born prior to the enforcement of the
Act U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. If he was born prior to the enforcement of the Act, he will have right over the sir land in question. 11. In view of the allegations contained in the suit for the cancellation of the documents, the suit is maintainable in the civil court. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Petition dismissed) _____________