The main legal point established is that suits for cancellation of instruments related to agricultural land are cognizable by the civil court, based on the nature of relief sought and the legal provisions.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 19. 2. 2001 passed by respondents No. 1 in revision holding that the suit is cognizable by the civil court.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, stated the facts, are that respondent No. 2 filed Suit No. 1073 of 1993 in the Court of munsif, Deoria for cancellation of the gift-deed dated 31. 12. 1985 and the sale-deed dated 29. 9. 1987 in respect of the agricultural land with the allegations that the land in dispute is sir land. He was born prior to the enforcement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short the act ). He being a coparcener acquired rights in the sir land by the birth. His father sadanand married Smt. Israji, who is stepmother of the plaintiff. She obtained the gift-deed and sale-deed fraudulently. His father had not put signature or thumb impression on the disputed sale-deed and gift-deed. The sale-deed was without consideration. In any case, he had no right to execute the sale-deed in respect of his share over the land in dispute. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed written statement and it was denied that the gift-deed and the sale-deed were obtained fraudulently. One of the pleas raised was that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court framed various issues and issue No. 5 was whether the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court came to the conclusion that the suit is barred by Section 331 of the act and the revenue court can decide the validity of the gift-deed and sale-deed. The plain tiff-respondent filed revision against the said decision. The respondent No. 1 has allowed the revision holding that civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant the reliefs claimed in it.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri R. B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners who contended that the suit is not cognizable by the civil court in respect of the agricultural land.

( 4 ) THE question is what is the main relief in the suit. In Ram Padarath and others. v. Second additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others, 1989 RD 21, the Court held that the suit for cancellation of a sale-deed or other instruments and documents are essentially suits of civil nature and every suit of civil nature is cognizable by a civil court except cognizance of which is expressly or impliedly barred. In respect of the cancellation of the sale-deed, the suits are entertainable only by a civil court and no revenue court or any other court can entertain such a suit. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act reads as under :

" (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable, and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the facts of its cancellation. "

In respect of voidable documents, it was observed as under :"so far as voidable documents like those obtained by practising coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence etc. , are concerned, their legal effect cannot be put to an end without its cancellation. But a void document is not required to be cancelled necessarily. Its legal effect if any can be put to an end to by declaring it to be void and granting some other relief instead of cancelling it. Once it is held to be void it can be ignored by any court or authority being of no legal effect or consequence. A document executed without free consent or one which is without consideration or the object of which is unlawful or executed by a person not competent to contract like a minor or in excess of authority woul