The main legal point established in this judgment is that a suit for cancellation of a sale deed is triable by the civil court and not the revenue court.

1. - This is Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(a), Civil Procedure Code against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Baran dated 10-11-1975 in civil suit No. 10/75, by which it was held that the suit is triable by the revenue court and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff appellant for presenting the same in proper court.

2. The plaintiff appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed in the court of Additional District Judge, Baran regarding the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 279, measuring 10 Bighas and IS Biswas, which belonged to him and was in his possession. It was further asserted that the defendant-respondent No. 3 Samiran had no right to sale the disputed land in favour of defendant-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by executing a sale deed in their favour on 22-4-1974, which was got registered on 24-4-1974. It was prayed that a decree for cancellation of the above mentioned sale deed be passed in favour of the appellant. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that suit was with regard to agricultural land, it was triable at the revenue court. After hearing arguments of both sides, learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 10-11-1975 held the suit is not triable by the civil court and the plaint should be returned to the appellant for presentation in proper revenue court.

3. It may be mentioned that before respondent No. 3 executed sale deed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 & 2 on 22-4-1974 she had sold out this land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 1300/- on 6-12-1961 even though according to the appellant he had been in possession of the land since about 4-5 years before the above sale deed, This sate deed was executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 39/- and it appears that it was no: got registered. The appellant therefore, filed a suit in the court a Assistant Collector, Baran for declaring him to be Khatedar tenant of the above land. It has been asserted by the appellant that the above suit was decreed in his favour on an admission made by Mst. Samiran in the said court. Subsequently, she again sold the same land for consideration of Rs. 8000/- to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as mentioned above.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri J.K. Singhi has contended that only relief claimed in the plaint was cancellation of sale deed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, this suit was exclusively triable by a civil court as this relief could not have been granted by a revenue court. He has, therefore, urged that the lower court has seriously etred in holding that even though the relief claimed in the suit is coughed in the manner that it looks like making only a prayer for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondents Nos. I & 2 but the relief, if awarded, would actually amount to grant of declaration that the plaintiff is a Khatedar tenant of the suit land and, therefore, the 3rd defendant had no right to sale the said land in dispute.

5. Shri S.P. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment and contended that it has been rightly held that that the suit was not triable by a civil court and it has been properly returned to the plaintiff for presentation to a revenue court of competent jurisdiction.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parlies ann gone through the record of the case. The trial court has relied upon the case of Chandanmal v. Dawa 1954 R.L.W. 184 in which this Court has held that while deciding such matters the court must look to the substance of the plaint and not merely its outlook. In the case of Ashata v. Narain 1963 R.L.W. 323 it has been laid down that such questions should be decided on the allegations made in the plaint taken in their essence and it should be seen what is the true nature of the suit and the object as disclosed by the allegations contained in the plaint. In the case of Shankerlat v. Dhulilal 1963 RLW 313 it has b