The jurisdiction of the civil court or the revenue court to entertain a suit for cancellation of a sale deed depends on the substance of the allegation and whether the deed is void on the face of it or requires a declaration of its invalidity.

The matter was heard on 18-2-97 on the point of admission in presence of the defendant-appellant and the plaintiff-respondents appearing as caveators. The concerned suit was filed by the respondents for setting aside a sale deed and for permanent injunction. It was stated that the sale deed was obtained by in personation and the plaintiffs had not executed it. There was no agreement for sale between the plaintiffs and the defendant. According ly, the prayer for cancellation was made together with an injunction against the defendant to restrain them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs.

2. It was the defence case that the plaintiffs had no cause of action as the suit property was sold away to defendant No. 1 by a sale deed dated 21-4-89 which was duly execute by the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1, from the date of the aforesaid sale became a bhoomidhar with transferable right and was in possession of the suit property by cultivation. The suit was stated to be barred under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act. The suit was also not maintainable under Sec tion 331 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. The Munsiff decreed the suit and cancelled the concerned sale deed and issued the injunc tion order as was prayed for.

3. The first appellate court confirmed the findings of the Trial Judge and dismissed the Civil Appeal preferred by the present appellant. Only thereafter the present ap peal was filed and the parties were directed to maintain status quo as on 17-10- 96 in respect of the suit property. The respon dents filed a counter-affidavit and made a prayer for vacation of stay order and the matter was heard as indicated above.

4. In the memo of appeal the appellant raised certain questions as substantial ques tions of law. It was urged that the plaintiffs should have filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A & L. R. Act as the revenue records were not in their names. It was fur ther urged that as the plaintiffs were found out of possession and no relief for posses sion was sought, the suit could not have been decreed for permanent injunction. It was stated that the two hand writing experts examined in the case came with diverse opinions and the court acted illegally to sit as an expert. It was further stated that the judgments were against the weight of evidence adduced. The suit was basically one for cancellation of a sale deed on the ground of impersonation and absence of execution by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel took me through a series of decisions as to the authority of the Civil Judge to take up such a suit.

5. In the case between Hira and others v. The Civil Judge, Gyanpur, as reported in 1993 Allahabad Civil Journal at page 57, it was held by the Allahabad High Court that a suit for injunction in respect of agricultural land was cognizable only by the revenue court and the suit was not maintainable before the civil court. The order was passed in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Trial Judge had returned the plaint on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction. The order was chal lenged in the appellate court and the order was confirmed. The writ petition too was dismissed upholding the views of the civil court. It was out and out a suit for injunction and such suit is envisaged under Section 153 of the Z. A. and L. R. Act and, according to the High Court in this case, the civil court could have jurisdiction under Section 9, C. P. C. except, for such suits cognizance of which is expressly or impleadly barred. In view of the provisions of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act such cognizance by the Civil Court for that nature of the suit was held barred. In another case, reported in 1994 Allahabad Civil Journal at page 911, the High Court was approached in a writ petition (Tejbhan Singh and others v. Second Additional Dis trict Judge, Jaunpur ). It was a suit for cancel lation of a sale deed. According to the aver ments in the plaint the document was void. The pla