The main legal principle established in the judgment is the interpretation of void documents and the determination of the main relief sought by the plaintiff in deciding the jurisdiction of Civil Court versus Revenue Court.

R. M. Sahai, J.

1. THESE two appeals although arise out of different orders are being disposed of by common judgment as the question of law raised in both of them is the same, namely whether suits were maintainable in Civil Court or Revenue Court.

2. IT has been found by the two Courts below that the sale deeds executed by respondents' mother, his natural guardian in favour of appellants were void and inoperative as respondent being a lunatic no sale-deed could be executed on his behalf even by the natural guardian without the permission of District Judge. On this finding and the pleading to same effect the question is whether courts below committed any error in deciding the issue on question of jurisdiction in affirmative.

Admittedly the land in dispute is Bhumidhari and is governed by provisions of UP ZA and LR Act I of 1951. The suits were not only for declaration, that the sale deeds were void but for possession as well. A document which is void can be avoided or ignored by a party. It is only a voidable document which needs adjudication by Civil Court. The controversy has been put beyond doubt by Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath v. H. N. Singh, AIR 1973 SC 1451. Under Sec. 331 of the UP ZA and LR Act no suit can be filed in any Court except in a court or authority mentioned in the schedule on a cause of action of which any relief can be obtained by revenue courts. The word, 'any relief, has been interpreted by this Court to mean main relief. The question, therefore, is what was the main relief of plaintiff. In other words was the relief for possession only ancillary. If the sale-deed was void as has been found to be then it could be avoided by respondent and the only relief or main relief for which he could approach was for possession. By seeking declaration that sale-deed was void the plaintiff's only attempted to camouflage the suit so that it may become cognizable by Civil Court. This he could not be permitted to do. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to go into any other question.

3. IN the result these appeals succeeds and are allowed. The decree and the order passed by lower appellate Court is set aside. The suits are dismissed on ground that they were not maintainable. The remedy of the plaintiffs is to approach the revenue court. IN the circumstances of the case the 'parties shall bear their own costs throughout.

Appeals allowed.