Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 22.2.2000 passed by the respondent No. 1, District Judge, Siddharth Nagar.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Masammat Aisha, mother of the petitioners filed a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed which was alleged to have been executed by Massamat Aisha in favour of respondent No. 2-Smt. Badrunnisha. The case of Smt. Massamat Aisha was that she was an illiterate lady and was the sole owner of the disputed property but by fraud practised upon her, the husband of respondent No. 2 got the sale-deed executed in favour of his wife Smt. Badrunnisha by showing himself as the witness in the sale-deed. The contention of Massamat Aisha was that in the sale-deed there was no consideration mentioned and it was obtained by fraud. She came to know of this fraud on 19.9.1986 and then she filed the suit No. 637 of 1986 for cancellation of the said sale-deed before the Civil Court.

3. Before the Civil Court, the respondent No. 2 filed her objections that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and further objection of the respondent No. 2 was that her name had been recorded in the revenue records prior to the filing of the suit and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court and if at all, only the Revenue Court had jurisdiction. However, the respondent No. 2 insisted that the sale-deed dated 13.1.1977 was a genuine document and same cannot be questioned.

4. The trial Court after hearing the parties, by its order dated 17.4.1998 held that the suit was maintainable before the Civil Court and was not barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The order dated 17.4.1998 was challenged by the respondent No. 2 in a civil revision No. 31 of 1998 and the Court below by its impugned order dated 22.2.2000 has held that since the name of the respondent No. 2 was already mentioned in the revenue records and in any view of the matter the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of the specific bar created by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. So far as the various case law cited before the Court below, it was held that all those cases related to the objections arising under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 wherein the objection was that the proceedings before the Civil Court were not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 331 of the Act of 1950 and since this matter arises out of the proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, therefore, the case law cited by the petitioner-respondents before the revisional Court had no application to the facts of the case and the Civil Court therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

5. I have heard Shri Jokhan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. This matter is listed in the cause list as peremptory. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Learned standing counsel appears for the respondent No. 1.

6. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the name of Smt. Massamat Aisha stood recorded in the revenue records even prior to the filing of the civil suit, therefore, it was not necessary for her to approach the Civil Court for declaration of her rights and filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the only remedy available for her is to file a civil suit for cancellation of the sale-deed on the ground that the sale-deed had been obtained by fraud. In this regard he has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Ram and another v. I Additional District Judge and others, 2001 ACJ 497, wherein the Supreme Court while considering the Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Ram Padarath v. Second ADJ, Sultanpur, 1989 ACJ 1, held that where the name of the plaintiff alr