R. M. Sabai, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS is defendant's revision directed against order dated 10-2-1978 passed by Munsif Gonda on preliminary issue of jurisdiction whether suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 26-11-1974 was maintainable in Civil Court or Revenue Court. In plaint it was alleged that vendor remained sirdar and as he never became bhumidhar sale deed executed by him was illegal. It was also alleged that there was no necessity to execute sale deed and it was obtained without consideration. In sub-paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of paragraph 4 it was alleged that Rajkumar Singh was hard of hearing and was suffering from acute disease in his leg which had to be operated and he was confined to hospital from 19-11-1970 to 24-11-1972. Due to these diseases his mind was affected since January 1973 and he was not in a condition to execute any sale deed nor could he understand its import. And as he bad grown very weak anyone could pursuade him and get any document executed. Relying on 1979 AWC 524 and AIR 1968 SC 859 it has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that on the plaint allegations the sale deed was void therefore the suit lay in Revenue Court as in fact it was suit for declaration that plaintiff was sole sirdar and such suit was cognizable by revenue court which could also examine the validity of sale deed. The argument appears to be misconceived. The suit was for cancellation of sale deed. Such a suit is not cognizable in revenue court. It is not disputed that Raj Kumar Singh was tenure holder. If the sale deed is valid nobody can have any right except applicant. The relief for cancellation in the circumstances is not ancillary but the principal and only relief. The question of applicability of 1979 AWC 524 or AIR 1968 SC 859 does not arise. These decisions lay down general principle when can a document be characterised as void and voidable. If the document is void It can be ignored and therefore revenue court can look into it -See Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain Singh, AIR 1973 SO 2451. But to say that suit for cancellation of sale deed lies in revenue court is reading too much in these decisions. A suit in revenue court is cognizable only if it is covered under Section 331. Examining the validity of sale deed in suit cognizable by revenue court is not the same thing as saying that a suit for cancellation of void document is cognizable only in revenue court. If the argument of learned counsel is accepted it shall mean that suit for cancellation of voidable documents would lie in Civil Court whereas of void documents in Revenue Court. This however is fallacious. Both the suits are cognizable in Civil Court. It is only in suit cognizable by revenue courts that it has been recognised that they can examine the validity of document if it is void. It has been seen above that it was a suit which was maintainable in Civil Courts only. The argument therefore of invalidity due to contents and character of documents does not arise for consideration.
(3.) IN the result this revision fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ? The judgment is pronounced under Chapter VIII, Rule 1 (3) of Rules of Court. --- Revision dismissed.;