Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Shri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as Shri Shubhra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Through the instant review petition, the review petitioner has sought the review of the order dated 29.2.2012, passed in W.P.No. 744 (Consolidation) of 2011 mainly on the ground that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not attracted in the instant case, as the sale-deed executed by Keshav Ram in favour of grand- son,namely, Chandra Bhan Singh is not disputed rather only consideration is disputed.

3. By oral argument, learned counsel for the Review-petitioner, Shri R.N. Gupta submitted that the Consolidation Court has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the sale-deed and if it is not proved before it, the Consolidation Court has jurisdiction to ignore it. In support of his submission, he cited a decision of Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Padarath v. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur, in which Full Court considered the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Court. The Full Court expressed its opinion on the point which is extracted below;

“We are of the view that the case of Indra Dev v. Ram Piari, 1982(8) ALR 517(H.C.L.B). has been correctly decided and the said decision requires no consideration, while the Division Bench case Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri, (1981) AWC 469, is regarding the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities, but so far as it holds that suit in respect of void document will lie in the revenue Court it does not lay down a good law. Suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the Civil Court and a party cannot be deprived of his right getting this relief permissible under law except when a declaration of right or status and a tenure holder is necessarily needed in which event relief for cancellation will be surplusage and redundant. A recorded tenure holder having prima facie title in his favour can hardly be directed to approach the revenue Court in respect of seeking relief for cancellation of a void document which made him to approach the Court of law and in such case he can also claim ancillary relief even though the same can be granted by the revenue Court.”

4. The Supreme Court has also considered the aforesaid judgment in one another case i.e, Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and others, AIR 1990 SC 540. Thus, this Court as well as Supreme Court has upheld the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Indra Dev v. Ram Piyari, 1982(8) ALR 517, in which it has been held that suit regarding cancellation of void instrument and documents are cognisable by the Civil Court.

5. In the aforesaid case Hon’ble Supreme Court considered one another case i.e, Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narayan Singh, (1974) 1 SCR 339 : AIR 1973 SC 2451, in which dealing with the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of the Holdings Act 1954 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under

“........................where there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by setting it aside or its cancellation, it could be urged that the Consolidation Authorities have no power to cancel the deed, and, therefore, it must be held to be binding on them so long as it is not cancelled by a Court having the power to cancel it.”

6. In the case of Prem Singh and others v. Birbal and others, (2006) 5 SCC 353, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under;

“There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. “

7. In the case of Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, (2000) 1 SCC 434, one of the questions for consideration was whether on the facts of the case mortgage was proved by the plaintiff by production of certified copy of the deed? Hon’ble the Supreme Court answered in the following manner;

“We shall first deal with the proof of