- (1.) DR. B. S. Chauhari, J. The Present petition has been filed against the judg ment and order of the District Judge, Jaunpur dated 6-12-1982 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), wherein the learned District Judge has upheld the judgment and order of the learned Munsif dated 15-2-1981 (Anneuxre-2 to the writ petition ).
(2.) THE factual gamut of the case is that one Smt. Patiraji, respondent No. 3, filed Civil Suit No. 112 of 1974 on 16-4-1974 before the learned Munsif for the cancellation of the sale-deed of the agricultural land dated 14-9-1973 which had subsequently been registered on 25-9-1973 on the ground that respondent No. 3, Who owned and possessed the land in dispute, had never executed the said sale- deed and it had been obtained by playing fraud as some one had been imposted as the vendor to execute the said sale-deed. THE present petitioner who was the defendant in the said suit raised the preliminary objection that the Civil Suit was not main tainable as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the matter and the Revenue Court was the only Forum to cancel the said sale-deed. THE learned Munsif, vide his order dated 15-9- 1981 rejected the preliminary objection raised by the present petitioner and held that the Civil Court was competent to entertain the said suit for cancellation of the sale-deed (Annexure 2 to the writ petition ). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the Civil Revision No. 235 of 1981 before the learned District Judge questioning the correctness of the judgment of the learned Munsif, THE learned District Judge dismissed the said revision vide his judgment and order dated 6-12-1982 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Heard Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. N. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case the Civil Suit is not maintainable as according to the allegations made in the plaint, the transaction is void and not voidable In fact it is settled law that no order, transac tion or contract can be 'allowed to stand if H has been obtained by fraud as fraud unravels everything. Chief Justice Edward Coke of England has observed about three centuries ago as under: "fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" [quoted in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994 (1) SCO 1],
(3.) IN the case of Nigawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa Chireknrabar, AIR 1968 SC 956, it was held that a contract induced by Fraud is not void, but only voidable at the option of the party defrauded. Until it is avoided, the transaction is valid. But the legal position will be different if there is a fraudulent misrepresentation nor merely to the contents of the document but as to its character. In the case of Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2451, the Apex Court observed as under : "we think that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any court or authority and one where it has to be actually set aside before it can cease to have legal effect. An alienation made in excess of the power to transfer would be, to the extent of the excess of power, invalid. An adjudication on the effect of such a purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to rights or interests in land which are the subject-matter of consolidation proceedings. The existence and quantum of rights claimed or denied will have to be declared by the consolidation authorities which would be deemed to be invested with jurisdiction, by the necessary implication of their statutory powers to adjudicate upon such rights and interests in land, to declare such documents effective or ineffective, but, where there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by setting it aside or its cancellation, it could be urged that the consolidation authorities have no power to cancel the deed, and, therefore, it must be held to be binding on them so long as it is not cancelled by a court having the power to cancel it. In the case before us, the plaintiff's claim is that the sale of his half share by his uncle was invalid, inoperative, and void. Such a claim could be adjudicated upon by consolidation courts. We find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Al lahabad High Court in Jagannath Shukla's case (supra), that it is the substance of the claim and not its form which is decisive. ".;