The main legal principle established is that the jurisdiction of the civil court to try suits for cancellation of voidable documents concerning agricultural land is not barred, and the cause of action is the execution of the deed itself.

( 1 ) THESE are three writ petitions in which common questions of law are involved and. therefore, they are being taken up together and are being disposed of. The file of Writ Petition No. 9587 of 1988 shall be the leading case.

( 2 ) IN Writ Petition No. 9587 of 1988, Jai Singh v. 2nd Addl. District Judge and Ors. , the courts below have taken a view that the suit for cancellation of sale deed as has been filed by the plaintiff will lie in the civil court even though the plaintiff is not recorded in the revenue papers and documents sought to be cancelled in view of the pleadings, appear to be void.

( 3 ) IN Writ Petition No. 29170 of 1990, Ramapati v. Babau and Ors. , the courts below after repelling the plea of the petitioner, held that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 4 ) IN Writ Petition No. 19105 of 1987, Tara Chand and Ors. v. IInd Addl. District Judge and ors. , there was a question of abatement of the suit under the provisions of U. P. Consolidation of holdings Act. The trial court, on the application moved by the defendants directed that the suit will abate under Section 5 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act but on filing revision by the plaintiff, the order of the trial court was set aside and it was held that the suit will lie in the civil court.

( 5 ) THE question involved in all the cases relates to the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect to the documents, sought to be cancelled by filing suit in that respect.

( 6 ) THE question can be formulated in the following manner :

(i) whether the suit for cancellation of voidable document concerning to agricultural land will lie in the civil court, when the revenue entry is in favour of the plaintiff? (ii) whether the suit for cancellation of voidable document in respect of the agricultural land wilt lie in the civil court when entry is not in favour of the plaintiff? (iii) whether suit for cancellation of void document in respect to agricultural piece of land, if the plaintiff is not recorded, will lie in the civil court? (iv) whether the suit for cancellation of void document if the plaintiff is recorded will lie in the civil court?

( 7 ) THIS question has already engaged attention of this Court as well as Honble Apex Court in large number of decisions, which will be useful to be mentioned in this judgment.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner in support of submission that in respect to the void document, if the plaintiff is not recorded in the revenue papers, the suit will lie in the revenue court has placed reliance on the judgment as has been given in Tej Bhan Singh v. IInd Addl. District Judge, 1994 (2) ACJ 911, given by Honble S. P. Srivastava, J. , judgment as given in Lal bihari v. Addl. District Judge, 1996 AWC (Suppl) 314, by Hon. N. L. Ganguly, J. , and decision given in Rasheedan v. Amar Singh, 1993 AWC 1695, given by Hon. S. K. Phaujdar, J. The ratio of the aforesaid cases appears to be that If the document claimed in the plaint to be void, and the plaintiff is not recorded in the revenue papers, the main relief appears to be of declaration to the rights and, therefore, relief of cancellation of the sale deed is surpluses and the plaintiff has to go in the revenue court. The observation as has been made in the decision in 1994 (2) ACJ 911 by hon. S. P. Srivastava. J. , in para 6 of that judgment is quoted below : the learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently urged that in the face and circumstances of the case that suit was cognizable by the civil court. In fact for an adjudication of an issue relating to jurisdiction, the averments contained in the plaint have to be taken in their entirety. The effort of the court has to be to gather the pith and substance of what is alleged in the plaint. The pith and substance of the plaint in the instant case necessarily involved in the adjudication of the question as to whether the plaintiffs were or not the bhumidhars of the land in dispute to the extent of 2/