Plaintiffs have directed this appeal against the order of the lower appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondents and directing return of appellants plaint to them for presentation to proper Court on the ground that the suit is not cognizable by the Civil Court in view of the pro vision contained in Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

In the above suit the plaintiffs-appellants "claimed a decree for cancella tion of the sale deed dated July 10, 1969 executed by Smt. Ram Pvari Devi, mother of appellant No. 1 Indra Deo minor in favour of Bramha Nand respondent No. 1 in respect of certain agricultural plots. The cancellation was sought on the ground that Smt. Ram Pyari had no interest in the pro perty in suit and, therefore, she was not entitled to execute the sale deed. The appellants claim was that they were the Bhumidhars of the land in dispute. The learned District Judge held that the allegations made in the plaint amounted to saying that the sale deed was a void document. On this basis reiving upon Section 331 of the Act and the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath v. H. N. Singh, (A. I. R 1973 S. C. 2451: 1973 R. D. 423.) and of this Court in Ram Math v. Smt. Munna, (1976 L. L. J. 52) the Court below held that the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Court only and the Civil Court had no Jurisdiction to try the same. It accordingly passed the order for return of the plaint.

Sri H. S. Sahai, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants argue that the allegations made in the plaint do not amount to saying that the sale deed is a void document. Alternatively he argues that even if the said allegations amount to saying that the deed is void, its cancellation is necessary because its existence casts a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs which can be removed only by cancellation of the document and this can be made by the Civil Court alone, the Revenue Court being competent only to ignore the document whenever the same is produced before it and not to cancel the same. According to the learned counsel the continuance of the cloud may cause serious prejudice to the plaintiffs inasmuch as in course of time, in the face of the registered sale deed, plaintiffs claim of title may not be accepted and recognised and thereby they may lose title to the land in dispute. The learned counsel has cited the following authorities in support of his submissions:-

(1) 1968 ALJ 1108: AIR 1968 All 526 (FB ). Ram Awalamb and Others v. Jot a Shankar and Others.

(2) 1970 Allahabad Weekly Reports 204, Batasar and Others v. Udit Narain Upadhayaya etc.

(3) 1970 Revenue Decisions 216 (DB), Parsottam v. Narottam and Another.

(4) 1972 Allahabad Weekly Reporter 623,ramdhariv. Jodhan and Others.

(5) 1974 Revenue Decisions 300, Ram Kumar v. Chhotey and Others.

(6) 1980 Allahabad Law Journal 113, Jagdamba Prasad Singh v. Prahlad Singh.

(7) 1981 Lucknow Law Journal 137, Rameshwar Prasad v. 1st Additional District Judge Gonda and Others.

Sri N. K. Pandey learned counsel for the defendants-respondents argues that the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are contrary to the decision rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and to the Full Bench decision of this Court and cannot, therefore, be relied upon. In addition to the two authorities noticed by the lower appellate Court, the learned counsel has relied upon Sheo Pal v. Lekhpata (1979 L. L. J. 165 (D. B.) ). Accord ing to the learned counsel on the averments made in the plaint the sale-deed is void and is, therefore, a waste paper and consequently it does not affect the plaintiffs title and, as such, all that the plaintiffs are required to do in order to protect their title is to file a suit for declaration of their title which is cognizable by the Revenue Court. On this basis it is argued that the bar created under Section 331 is applicable and the Civil Court