Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.Heard Sri. Nipun Singh learned counsel for the applicants. Applicants are defendants in O.S. No. 49 of 2009 which has been instituted against them by Smt. Vikram Kaur sole respondent in this revision. The relief claimed in the suit is for declaration that sale-deed dated 7.3.2007 shown to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 1, Smt. Anju and the subsequent sale-deed dated 31.3.2008 by defendant No. 1 to defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are null, void, ineffective and inoperative and for sending the information of the declaration to the Sub-Registrar. Property in dispute is agricultural land. Defendants filed written statement and raised the plea of Bar of Jurisdiction. Issues were framed. Issue No. 3 related to bar of jurisdiction i.e. as to whether suit was barred before civil court in view of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 3, Muzaffar Nagar through order dated 9.10.2012 held the suit to be maintainable before Civil Court. The said order has been challenged through this revision.

2. Defendants had also filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The said application was also rejected by the impugned order.

3. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are daughters of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are wives of brothers of husband of defendant No. 1. In para 5 of the plaint it is stated that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 obtained the thumb impression of the plaintiff on the sale-deed dated 7.3.2007 by telling her that the documents on which she was affixing her thumb impression related to grant of old age pension and that she was not given any amount as sale consideration and that plaintiff was in possession. Sale consideration in the sale-deed was shown to be Rs. 5/- lac. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 5 filed joint written statement denying the plaint allegations. In para 40 plea of bar of jurisdiction was raised stating therein that defendants names had been entered in the revenue record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following authorities in support of his contention:

1. Deokinandan and Others Vs. Surajpal and Others,

2. Shri Ram and Another Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge and Others, .

3. Kamla Prasad and Others Vs. Sri Krishna Kant Pathak and Others, .

4. Smt. Brijbala Vs. Additional District Judge and Others, .

5. In the aforesaid authority of Sri. Ram the facts were that one Vidyawati Devi executed sale-deed of her agricultural land in favour of plaintiffs on 12.7.1984. The defendants asserted that Smt. Vidyawati Devi had executed sale-deed in their favour on 24.7.1984. Smt. Vidyawati Devi admitted the earlier sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff but denied the sale deed in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of the subsequent sale-deed on the ground mat instead of Vidyawati Devi some other woman posing herself as Vidyawati Devi had executed the sale-deed. The Supreme Court held that suit was maintainable before the Civil Court. However, it appears that until filing of the suit the name of the defendants had not been entered in the revenue record and name of the plaintiff was continuing in the revenue record.

6. In the authority of Kamla Prasad the facts were quite different. The recorded tenure holder had executed a sale-deed. Plaintiff filed the suit stating therein that even though he was not recorded tenure holder but along with recorded tenure holder he also had share in the land in dispute. In view of this the Supreme Court held that suit for cancellation of the sale deed was not maintainable before the Civil court. In the said case reliance was placed upon Shri Ram and Another Vs. Ist Addl. District Judge and Others, . In the said case it was also held that as defendants names had been recorded in the revenue record hence suit was not maintainable.

7. In the aforesaid authority of Sri. Ram, Full Bench authority of this court reported in Ram Padarath and Others Vs. Second Addl. District Judge and Others, was specifically approved and reference was also made to Smt. Bismillah Vs. Janeshwar Prasad and Others, . The following observation of the full Bench of this Court were quoted with the approval in Sri. Ram "Suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally he in the Civil Court".

8. In Smt. Bismillah Vs. Janeshwar Prasad and Others, the facts were that plaintiff Smt. Bismillah asserted that she was given to understand that she was executing a document of agency in favour of Janeshwar Prasad but afterwards it transpired that he had fraudulently got a sale-deed executed by her. Supreme Court held that suit before Civil Court was maintainable. Last sentence of para-6 of the Supreme Court authority is quoted below:

In the instant case, prima facie appellant seems to proceed on the premise that she cannot ignore the sales but that the sales require to be set aside before she is entitled to possession and other consequential reliefs.

Para-7 of the said authority is quoted below:

7. Even in cases where the transaction was assailed as, void, the High Court of Allahabad in India Dev v. Ram Pyari, 1982 All LJ 1308, held the Civil Courts jurisdiction not barred. The facts in that case were that:

...plaintiff-appellants claimed a decree for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 10-7-1969 executed by Smt. Ram Pyari Devi, mother of appellant - 1. Indra Dev, minor, in favour of Bramha Nand respondent I in respect of certain agricultural plots. The cancellation was sought on the ground that Smt. Ram Pyari had no interest in the property in suit and, therefore, she was not entitled to execute the sale-deed....

In that case the learned District Judge had held that the allegations made in the plaint amounted to saying that the sale-deed was a void document. The Civil Court was held to have no jurisdiction.

The High Court, allowing the plaintiffs appeal and reversing the finding of the District Judge, held:

A survey of the above decisions shows that the consistent view of this Court is that the cause of action in a suit for cancellation of sale-deed is not the denial of plaintiffs title which may be said to be implicit in the execution of the sale-deed by the defendant but is the execution of the deed itself.

...Therefore, under the provisions of the Act itself, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be barred when declaration is sought against a person who has transferred, agricultural property which the plaintiff claims to be his. Section 229B does not contemplate all kinds of declaratory suits. It deals with declaratory suits of the specific type hereinbefore mentioned....

This case has since been approved by a full Bench of that Court in Ram Padarath and Others Vs. Second Addl. District Judge and Others, . The Full Bench held:

We are of the view that the case of India Deo v. Smt. Ram Pyari, 1982 All LJ 1308 has been correctly decided and the said decision requires no consideration, while the Division Bench case, Dr. Ajodhya Prasad Vs. Gangotri Prasad, is regarding the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities, but so far as it holds that suit in respect of void document will lie in the Revenue Court it does not lay down a good law. Suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the Civil Court and a party cannot be deprived of his right getting this relief permissible under law except when a declaration of right or status and a tenure-holder is necessarily needed in which event relief for cancellation will be surplusage and redundant. A recorded tenure-holder having prima facie title in his favour can hardly be directed to approach the Revenue Court in respect of seeking relief for cancellation of a void document which made him to approach the Court of law and in such case he can also claim ancillary relief even though the same can be granted by the Revenue Court.

In any view of the matter, the present action would be covered by the pronouncement of the Full Bench. It is not necessary to go into the correctness of the view of the Full Bench as its correctness was not assailed before us.

Accordingly, the suit in question is maintainable before the Civil Court. Revision is therefore, dismissed.