- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-11-1989 passed by the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner filed a Suit No. 110 of 1984 against the defendant- respondents for cancellation of the agreement of sale-deed dated 18-6-1981 and the subsequent sale- deeds dated 7-11-1981 and 16-12-1981 executed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 7. The case as set up by the petitioner in his plaint was that he as well as defendant Nos. 10 to 12 were owners of the disputed land but the name of the petitioner alone was recorded in revenue records. Defendant Nos. 10 to 12 had share in the disputed land. It was further alleged that the petitioner had developed bad habits and defendant Nos. 1 to 9 obtained sale-deeds when he was under intoxication and he was not paid any sale consideration. The contesting defendant-respondents filed written statement. One of the pleas raised in the written statement of the contesting defendant-respondents was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it was in respect of cancellation of the deeds in regard to agricultural as well as Abadi land. The trial Court held that the suit was cognizable by Civil Court so far as the Abadi land was concerned, but so far as the agricultural land was concerned, it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the decision of the trial Court and the appellate Court affirmed the view taken by the trial Court. The question to be decided in the writ petition is whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit or not. In Ram Padarath and others v. IInd Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others, 1989 AWC 290, the Full Bench held that the relief in regard to cancellation of sale-deeds can be claimed by a person under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and such relief can be granted only by Civil Court.
(3.) I have heard Shri N. Lal, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. He urged that the land in suit was an agricultural land and the plaintiff can establish his right only by filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It may be noted that there is no provision in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act under which the plaintiff can claim the relief for cancellation of the sale- deeds. In Ram Padarath's case (supra) the Full Bench has taken the view that the suit for cancellation of sale-deed is cognizable only by Civil Court even in respect of agricultural land covered by the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the apex Court given in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh and others, AIR 1973 SC 290, wherein distinction is drawn between void and voidable documents. It was held that a void document does not require cancellation and the rights of parties can be decided by the consolidation authorities. The observation was made in respect of an objection filed before the consolidation authorities. It was not considering the question in regard to the relief claimed by a person under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Secondly, the plaintiff-respondent has challenged the deed not only on the ground that it is void but also on the ground, which makes the deed voidable.;