S.K.Singh,J. - (1.) These are three writ petitions in which common question of law are involved and therefore, they are being taken up together and are being disposed of. The file of writ petition No. 9587 of 1988 shall be the leading case.
(2.) In Jai Singh v. The 2nd Addl. District Judge & others the Courts below have taken a view that the suit for cancellation of sale deed as has been filed by the plaintiff will lie in the Civil Court even though the plaintiff is not recorded in the revenue papers and documents sought to be cancelled in view of the pleadings, appears to be void. In Ramapati v. Babau & others, the Courts below after repelling the plea of the petitioner, held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the Suit. In Tara Chand & others v. IInd Addl. District Judge & others, there was a question of abatement of the suit under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Trial Court, on the application moved by the defendants directed that the suit will abate under Section 5 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act but on filing revision by the plaintiff, the order of the Trial Court was set aside and it was held that the suit will lie in the Civil Court.
(3.) The question involved.in all the cases relates to the, jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect to the documents, sought to be cancelled by filing suit in that respect. The question can be formulated in the following manner: (i) Whether the suit for cancellation of voidable document concerning to agricultural land will lie in the Civil Court, when the revenue entry is in favour of the plaintiff. (ii) Whether the suit for cancellation of voidable document in respect to the agricultural land will lie in the Civil Court when entry is not in favour of the plaintiff. (iii) Whether suit for cancellation of void document in respect to agricultural piece of land, if the plaintiff is not recorded, will lie in the Civil Court. (iv) Whether the suit for cancellation of void document if the plaintiff is recorded will lie in the Civil Court.;