B. DAYAL, J. :- 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 section 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. Purshottam. 1960 All LJ 676 and Mukteshwari Prasad Tewari v. Ram Wali, 1965 All LJ 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.

4. We have heard learned counsel in great detail and although for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to go into all the aspects of the matter which will be considered in this judgment we have considered it proper to express our opinion on all those questions.

5. It is well settled that every suit of a civil nature lies in a civil court unless it is expressly barred by statute. What has, therefore, to be seen is, what is the bar created by the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in respect of such suits which would normally be filed in civil courts. The only bar that exists in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is S. 331. The relevant part of the section which creates the bar is in the following words :

"No court other than the court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II shall ........take cognizance ........of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application."

6. In substance, therefore, the bar exists where a suit is filed in a civil court which is based upon a 'cause of action' in respect of which cause of action the plaintiff could get any relief by a proceeding in the revenue court. Therefore, the primary important thing to be observed in each case filed in civil court is, where an objection is raised as to its maintainability in a civil court, as to what is the cause of action for it, and whether on the basis of that cause of action any relief can be granted by the revenue court. If the cause of action is one in which the revenue court can give no relief then the suit is one which would lie in the civil court. If the cause of action is one in respect of which no relief can be claimed in the revenue court then the suit is maintainable in the civil court and once the suit is maintainable in the civil court then there is no bar in civil court granting all possible reliefs flowing from that cause of action. Consideration of individual reliefs divorced from cause of action is, therefore, wholly irrelevant.

7. Applying this principle to the present case we find that the cause of action in the present case is that the plaintiff was, under fraudulent circumstances, induced to execute a sale deed of this property in favour of the defendants and the plaintiff wants that that sale deed be cancell