Point of Law: Civil Law - Validity of Sale deed - A voidable document is one which remains in force until set aside and such a document can be set aside only by a competent civil court. A suit for that purpose would therefore be maintainable - A claim that a transaction is void is, however, a matter which can be adjudicated upon by consolidation court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri S.C. Sitapuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 05.07.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur (here-in-after referred as DDC, Sitapur) in Revision No.302/283/270/266/204/80//66, Cheddu and Others Vs. Bharat and Others, under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and for a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties not to disturb the petitioners' possession over the disputed land i.e. Gata No.408 (Khata No.120).

3. The land in dispute was originally owned by late Aziz Khan S/o Pahelwan Khan. He sold the land to the petitioners namely Bharat Prasad, Ram Pal, Bhagwan Deen, Ramhetu and Raja Ram through a registered sale deed on 03.09.1982. In pursuance thereof the petitioners filed a mutation case which was decided in their favour and the names of the petitioners were recorded. One Israr, claiming him to be nephew of late Aziz Khan, filed a suit bearing no.423 of 1982 for cancellation of sale deed dated 03.09.1982 before the Munsif, Sitapur. The suit was dismissed by means of the order dated 29.05.1984. Israr filed a Civil Appeal No.83 of 1984 against the said order which was dismissed by means of the order dated 13.03.1985 holding that the suit was not triable by the civil court and it could have only been instituted before the Revenue Court. It was also held that the findings drawn by the learned Munsif will have no effect on the right, title and interest of the parties of the suit as the same was without jurisdiction. It appears that Israr had not filed any suit thereafter before the Revenue Court. However, one late Cheddu filed an objection under Section-9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (here-in-after referred as the Act) before the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the year 1993 stating that the suit was filed under Section 229-B by him for declaration. The suit was abated on account of start of the consolidation proceedings. The objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, Sitapur by means of the order dated 26.11.1998. The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was allowed by means of the order dated 06.02.1999. Hence the opposite parties no.2 to 5 filed a revision under Section-48 of the Act before the D.D.C., Sitapur. The revision was allowed by means of the order dated 05.07.2005 hence the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners are the recorded tenure holders of the land in dispute on the basis of registered sale deed executed by late Aziz Khan. In mutation proceedings, on the basis of said sale deed, no objection was filed by the opposite parties. Israr or anybody else had not filed any application for mutation on the basis of succession. The suit filed by Israr was dismissed by the civil court on merit after considering the pleadings and evidence adduced before it. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the suit can be filed before the Revenue Court. The said order was not challenged. There is no evidence that any suit was filed before the Revenue Court. He further submitted that the sale deed in favour of the petitioners has been questioned on the ground of impersonation by some other person in place of late Aziz Khan, therefore the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to cancel it or declare void. It can be cancelled or declared void only by the civil court.

5. He further submitted that the objection under the Act was filed during consolidation proceedings by late Cheddu, father of all the opposite parties no.2 to 6 but no objection was filed by Israr. There is no evidence that the father of the opposite parties no.2 to 6 was the nephew of late Aziz Khan, though he ha