A suit for cancellation of a void sale deed is cognizable by the civil court, and the relief for cancellation of the sale deed can be granted under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act by the civil court only.

Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri R. N. Singh advocate on behalf of the petitioner and standing counsel on behalf of the respondent.

2. Original Suit No. 77 of 1984 was filed by Smt. K. Devi against the petitioner Sheo Prasad Mishra, The relief prayed for in the said suit is only one namely, cancellation of a registered sale deed executed on 19.11.1983. In the said suit it was alleged that the plaintiff is the recorded tenure holder and an imposter has executed said sale deed, which has been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 19th November, 1989. It was, therefore, prayed that the said sale deed may be cancelled.

3. On behalf of the defendant objection was raised that the suit as filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable and was barred by provisions of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The issue framed in that regard was decided against the defendant and the Munsif by means of the order dated 31st January, 1985, held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable before the civil court.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Munsif, the defendant filed a revision, being Civil Revision No. 17 of 1985, which has, also been dismissed by the IV Additional District Judge, Ghazipur, by means of order dated 3rd January, 1986. Hence the present writ petition.

5. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was in respect of an agricultural holding’s sale deed, which was sought to be cancelled, was alleged to have been executed by an imposter and as such is a void document and, therefore, the suit as filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in view of the Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In support of the said version, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1973 SC 2451, AIR 1990 SC 1173 as also upon the three judgments of Hon’ble single Judges of this Court in 1989 RD 149, 1999 RD 655 and 2001 RD 422. It is contended that a suit for cancellation of a void sale deed is not maintainable, before the civil court and the appropriate forum in that regard is the revenue court.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the parties.

7. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has no merit. Admittedly, the suit as filed by the plaintiff was confined to a single relief namely for cancellation of the sale deed. The relief for cancellation of the sale deed can be granted under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act by the civil court only. It may be noted that in the said suit the plaintiff has not claimed any other relief.

8. The Full Bench of this Court, in the judgment in 1989 RD 21, while considering the jurisdiction of the civil/revenue court in respect of the void sale deed, has specifically held as follows :

“These cases in substance lay down that suit for cancellation of void deed is cognizable by civil court and Section 331 does not deprive a party from a right to approach competent court of law for getting a document cancelled and instead drives a party to revenue court claiming a different relief and that of cancellation which a revenue court cannot grant holding the deed to be void.”

9. Suit for cancellation of a void document will generally lie in the civil court and party cannot be deprived of his right for getting this relief under the law except when a declaration of title or status of a tenure holder is necessarily involved where relief of cancellation of sale deed is surplus. In the plaint allegation it is contended that plaintiff was recorded tenure holder in possession of land in dispute and an imposter has executed the sale deed of the land belonging to the plaintiff. Full Bench, referred to above on page 30 of the said judgment, has been held that in case of void document said to have been executed by a plaintiff during his disability or by someone impersonating him or said to have been executed by hi