The main legal point established in the judgment is that suits for cancellation of a registered document generally lie before the civil court, unless the challenge to the document is dependent upon a declaration of right or status of the plaintiff as a tenure holder.

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. As both the cases have common facts and raises common question of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The plaintiff-respondent in both the cases is Smt. Lalmati Devi. Her case is that the suit properties exclusively belonged to her husband Lattu. His name was duly recorded in the revenue records in respect of agricultural lands owned by him. Lattu died issue-less and intestate on 04.01.2013. Consequently, she inherited all the properties left behind by him. According to the plaintiff, about two years before his death, her husband fell seriously ill. Since they were issue-less, therefore, they placed complete faith and reliance upon Devendra, their pattidaar (one of the defendant in both the suits). He taking benefit of the trust reposed in him by the plaintiffs' husband succeeded in procuring a sale deed dated 30.05.2012 in his favour and his brother Pawan as well as a Will dated 02.06.2012. She came to know of the above two documents after the death of her husband when Devendra and his brother Pawan claimed title on basis of these documents in question. The specific case of the plaintiff is that she is in possession of all the properties left behind by her deceased husband. Accordingly, she instituted (i) Original Suit No. 803 of 2014 for cancellation of sale deed dated 30.05.2012 and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in her possession over the suit properties and (ii) Original Suit No. 1120 of 2014 for cancellation of will dated 02.06.2012 purportedly executed by her husband in favour of defendant Devendra and Pawan.

3. Devendra filed separate applications under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. in both the suits praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suits are barred from the cognizance of civil court in view of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (for short the Act). In original Suit No. 803 of 2014, by order dated 17.05.2016, the trial court rejected the application. The trial court held that the husband of the plaintiff was recorded tenure holder. Had there been no sale-deed, the plaintiff would have inherited the suit property. Consequently, declaration of title to the suit property is not involved. The suit for cancellation of sale deed based on fraud and misrepresentation would be maintainable before the civil court. Aggrieved thereby, Civil Revision No. 250 of 2016 has been filed by Devendra (defendant no.1).

4. In Original Suit No. 1120 of 2014, the trial court rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. holding that relief for cancellation of will would lie before the civil court. Aggrieved by the said order, defendant no.1 Devendra filed Civil Revision No. 108 of 2016. The revision has been dismissed by order dated 17.09.2016 reiterating that the suit for cancellation of will would lie before civil court. The revisional Court has taken note of the fact that initially name of plaintiff, being the natural heir, was mutated in the revenue records in place of her husband. Subsequently, on basis of alleged will in favour of the defendants, their name came to be mutated. The revisional court has held that since name of the defendants was entered on basis of will, which is already under challenge, therefore, no question of adjudication of title is involved. In the event, the suit is allowed and the will is cancelled, the cloud over the title of the plaintiff would stand dispelled. The revisional court has further observed that certain movable and other properties, which are not agricultural in character, are also subject matter of will, thus civil court alone will have jurisdiction in the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist/petitioner in both the cases made common submissions. It is urged that since name of defendants came to be recorded in revenue records, on basis of sale deed/will, therefore, declaration of title of the plaintiff is necessarily involved. It is co