Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Pankaj Saksena, for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava, for caveator in both the petitions. In both the petitions, common question arise for consideration as such both the petitions are being decided by a common order.

2. Petition No. 3687 of 2016 has been filed for setting aside the orders of Civil Judge (J.D.) dated 29.10.2014, deciding issue relating to jurisdiction of Civil Court to try a suit for cancellation of sale-deed, in respect of agricultural land, against the plaintiff and Additional District Judge dated 11.4.2016, dismissing the appeal (arising out of O.S. No. 105 of 2014) of the petitioner against aforesaid order. Petition No. 3688 of 2016 has been filed for setting aside the orders of Civil Judge (J.D.) dated 29.10.2014, deciding issue relating to jurisdiction of Civil Court to try a suit for cancellation of sale-deed, in respect of agricultural land, against the plaintiff and Additional District Judge dated 11.4.2016, dismissing the appeal (arising out of O.S. No. 102 of 2014) of the petitioner against aforesaid order.

3. Smt. Shanti alias Satiya (the petitioner) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 102 of 2014) for cancellation of sale-deeds dated 5.1.1961, executed by Smt. Phoolan Dullaiya in favour of Kunwar Raj, 15.7.1989, executed by heirs Kunwar Raj in favour of Shashi Pathak, Manish Chandra Agrawal and Amit Agrawal and 13.2.2003, executed by Shashi Pathak in favour of Aman Agrawal, in respect of plots 1625 Sa, 1626 Sa, 1627 Sa and 1628 Sa (total area 1.50 acre) of village Raksa, pargana and district Jhansi and for permanent injunction, restraining defendants-1 to 9 from interfering in her possession over the land in dispute. Smt. Shanti alias Satiya (the petitioner) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 105 of 2014) for declaration of sale-deed dated 12.6.1972, executed by Smt. Phoolan Dullaiya in favour of Siyaram, Vishwanath and Hukum Singh, as void and to cancel it, in respect of agricultural land situated at village Raksa, pargana and district Jhansi and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession over the land in dispute. In both suits, it has been stated that the disputed land belonged to Baijnath son of Ramu, who died in 1951, leaving behind his widow Smt. Phoolan Dullaiya and two minor daughters Shanti alias Satiya (aged about 5 years) and Kasturi (aged about 3 years). After death of Baijnath, Smt. Phoolan Dullaiya remarried to Aman, resident of village Ranguwa, pargana and district Jhansi. As such Shanti alias Satiya and Kasturi inherited entire property in dispute. Smt. Phoolan Dullaiya executed aforesaid sale-deeds dated 5.1.1961 and 12.6.1972, although, after remarriage, she was divested and left with no interest in land in dispute. Subsequent sale-deeds executed by transferees are also void, as no right accrued to them on the basis of sale-deed executed by Smt. Phoolan Dullaiya. On these allegations, the suits were filed.

4. The defendants contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. They stated that Smt. Phoolan Dullaiya was only heir of Baijnath and sale-deeds executed by her was valid. On the basis of sale-deeds, the names of transferees were mutated in revenue record and since the date of sale-deeds, transferees were in possession of the land in dipsute. Various technical pleas were raised. It has also been stated that as at present the defendants were recorded tenure holders and in possession of agricultural land. The suit is essentially a suit for declaration of title and possession over agricultural land as such jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is barred under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The village has been placed under consolidation operation on 27.9.2008 and the suit is liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed by Trial Court. Issue Nos. 5 and 6 were framed to th