The facts giving rise to this revision application are that opposite party Shrimati Lakhpata filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Utraula at Gonda for the cancellation of a sale deed said to have been execut ed by her on 2-6-1v66 in favour of the applicants. The sale deed was challenged on the ground that the plaintiff-opposite party was a minor and the applicants by a fraudulent misrepresentation to her obtained a sale deed which was without consideration. It was alleged that the applicants repre sented to her that Mangrey played a fraud on her and had got a fictitious entry made in his name over certain land belonging to her and for that she will have to execute a general power of attorney so that they contest her claim against Mangrey on her behalf. The allegations in the plaint are that in this way she executed a document under the impression that she was executing power of attorney. She subsequently found that instead of power of attorney, she was made to execute a sale deed in respect of the property belonging to her in favour of the applicants. The learned counsel for the parties have stated that paragraphs of the plaint relevant for purposes of the case are as quoted below :

" (Aa) Yeh ki jis wakt dastawaz bainama likha gaya us wakt wadini nabaligh thi. Uska koi wali nahin mukarrar karaya gaya aur dauran nabalghi mudaija ko bainama likhne ka koi haq nahin tha. Mudaiya uski paband nahin hai aur baligh ho jane ke baad usko namanzoor karti hai.

(Ba) Yeh ke aaraziyat mutadawe par musamme Mangrey he ek farzi inderaj dakhil kharij zariya parwana amal daramad apne naam Jcara liya tha halanke jis mukadme ka hawala parwana amal daramad men dija gaya tha us kism ka koi mukadma wadni aur Mangrey ke beech kabhi kisi adalat me nahin chala na to kisi adalat se digree hui thi aurna kisi adalat he parwana amal daramad bheja tha balki Mangrey he lekhpal se saz karke farzi wa jali amal daramad kagzat men apne nam kara liya tha. Mudaiya aurat zat hai anparh hai aur jahil hai pritiwadigan uske ghar ke karib ke rehne wale hain. Wadni gaon ke logon se shikayat karti rahi ke uske saath jaal kiya gaya hai, Us wakt koi mard wadni ke ghar men uski dekh bhal

karne wala nahin tha. Pritiwadigan he wadni se yeh kaha ke woh wadni ke taraf se pairwi karenge aur Mangrey ke muqabil men mukadama larenge aur jo jali inderaj Mangrey he kara liya hai usko kharij karwa denge lekin aisa karne ke liye wadni ko yeh karna hoga ke woh ek mukhtarnama likhkar pritiwadigan ke haq men registri karwa de. Wadni chunke lachar aurat thi is baat par razi ho gai. Pritiwadigan wadni ko lekar Utraula gaye aur wadni se yeh kaha ke jo kuchh likwaya jaega uske bare me jo bhi hakim us se punchhe woh hunkari bharti rahe aur agar usne kahin kuchh doosri baat kahi to mamla kharab ho jaega aur pairvi na ho paegi. Utraula pahunch kar pritiwadigan he ek dastawez likhaya aur daftafr sub registree men wadni ko le gaye aur wahan wadni sirf hunkari bharti gai aur yehi samajhti rahi ke dastawez mukhtarnama likhaya ja raha hai. Usko yeh pata nahin chala ke uski jaedad ka bainama likha ja raha hai.

(Sa) Yeh ke wadni ki koi bhi raqam pritiwadigan he aarazi mutadaweya ke bare men nahin di aur dastawez bainama bila muawza hai. Dastawez bainama ke pahle bhi koi rupiya wadni ko nahin mila. . . . . . . . . "

The applicant denied the allegations in the plaint and pleaded that when the sale deed was executed she was major and the deed was voluntarily exe cuted by her. It was also pleaded by the applicants that the property in suit is under consolidation operations and the controversy between the parties can be decided only by Consolidation authorities.

A preliminary issue was framed i. e. whether the suit was liable to abate under Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1958, The trial Court took the view that since the sale deed was challenged on the ground of fraud, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the controversy in dispute and since the relief