B. Dayal, J. - (1.)This civil revision has been referred by a learned single judge of this Bench on account of an apparent conflict between two Division Bench cases of this Court.
(2.)The facts which have given rise to this revision may shortly be stated. The plaintiff filed a suit in the civil court for cancellation of a sale deed on ground of fraud. He claimed that he was in possession of the property but in the alternative also prayed that If the opposite party was found in possession a decree for delivery of possession may also be passed. The defendants raised an objection to the maintainability of the suit in the civil court. The trial court, therefore, framed issue No. 4 on the question of jurisdiction and decided that issue holding that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In this case the question before the learned single judge was:
"Whether a suit in which cancellation of a document is in issue along with the relief for possession, lies before the civil court or by virtue of Sec. 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act before the revenue court only -

(3.)The learned single judge thought that there was a conflict between the decisions of this Court contained in Uma Pandey v/s. Purshottam, 1960 All L. J. 676 and Mukteshwari Prasad Tewari v/s. Ram Wall, 1965 All L. J. 1137. The learned single judge went on to observe that it was not difficult to distinguish those cases on facts and to lay down a law in the present case but the public and the bar find it difficult to reconcile the conflicting decisions and, therefore, he thought it necessary to get an authoritative decision.