- (1.) Heard Shri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as Shri Shubhra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. Through the instant review petition, the review petitioner has sought the review of the order dated 29.2.2012, passed in W.P. No. 744 (Consolidation) of 2011 mainly on the ground that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not attracted in the instant case, as the sale-deed executed by Keshav Ram in favour of grand- son, namely, Chandra Bhan Singh is not disputed rather only consideration is disputed.
(2.) By oral argument, learned counsel for the Review-petitioner, Shri R.N. Gupta submitted that the Consolidation Court has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the sale-deed and if it is not proved before it, the Consolidation Court has jurisdiction to ignore it. In support of his submission, he cited a decision of Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Padarath v. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur, in which Full Court considered the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Court. The Full Court expressed its opinion on the point which is extracted below; We are of the view that the case of Indra Dev v. Ram Piyari, 1982 8 AllLR 517. has been correctly decided and the said decision requires no consideration, while the Division Bench case Dr, Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri, 1981 AWC 469, 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 of Consolidation (Shri Narayan Shukla, J.) 323 when a declaration of right or status and a tenure holder is necessarily needed in which event relief for cancellation will be surplus age 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.
(3.) The Supreme Court has also considered the aforesaid judgment in one another case i.e., Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and others, 1990 AIR(SC) 540 Thus, this Court as well as Supreme Court has upheld the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Indra Dev v. Ram Piyari, 1982 8 AllLR 517, in which it has been held that suit regarding cancellation of void instrument and documents are cognisable by the Civil Court.;