Documents are void if there is fraudulent misrepresentation as to their character, making the suit cognizable by the revenue court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Aditya Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 21.08.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah in Original Suit No.12 of 1981 (Krishna Lal Dixit Vs. Zila Parishad, Etawah and Others) whereby application 156Ga of the petitioner to abate the suit was rejected, and order dated 24.07.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Etawah rejecting the revision of the petitioner.

3. The plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit bearing Original Suit No.12 of 1981 praying for a decree of cancellation of document dated 27.08.1951 and sale deed dated 30.09.1957. The suit was instituted on the ground that the property in dispute was owned by one Sukhi Lal and petitioner was adopted son of Sukhi Lal. It is pleaded that late Sukhi Lal had instituted a suit against plaintiff/respondent before the court of Munsif, Etawah which was dismissed, and the adoption deed of the plaintiff/respondent was held valid. The appeal preferred by late Sukhi Lal against the judgement and decree declaring the adoption deed valid was also dismissed.

4. It is further pleaded that the document dated 27.08.1951 was never executed by late Sukhi Lal and sale deed dated 30.09.1957 was also not executed by late Sukhi Lal in favour of petitioner/defendant. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, it was specifically pleaded that petitioners/defendants got their names recorded in the revenue records by playing fraud whereas they have no concern with the property in dispute and were not entitled to get their names recorded in the revenue record. In paragraph 9 of the plaint, plaintiff/respondent further pleaded that on inquiry it was found that petitioner/defendant got the document dated 30.09.1957 executed by playing fraud. It was further pleaded that no document was executed by late Sukhi Lal on 30.09.1957 and said document is forged and fabricated and was not signed by Sukhi Lal nor he had put any impression of thumb on that document.

5. The suit was contested by petitioners/defendant denying the averments made in the plaint.

6. The petitioners/defendants filed an application 156Ga alleging therein that as the village Umri, Pargana Auraiya, District Etawah in which property in dispute is situated was under consolidation operation, therefore, suit is liable to be abated under Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1953') as after the notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Act, 1953 consolidation court is empowered to declare the sale deed void.

7. The aforesaid application was contested by the plaintiff/respondent by filing objection contending inter-alia that after publication of notification under Section 5(2) of the Act, 1953, the suit was instituted. The plaintiff/respondent has stated in the plaint that the documents in question are voidable, and therefore, suit before the court of Civil Judge is maintainable.

8. The trial court vide order dated 21.08.1999 accepted the objection of plaintiff/respondent in holding that documents in question are voidable in nature and held that till the said documents are set aside, the character of these documents would be voidable.

9. A revision preferred by the petitioners/defendant against the order dated 21.08.1999 was rejected by the revision court vide judgement dated 24.07.2003, who affirmed the finding of the trial court.

10. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that both the courts below have erred in law in holding that as it was a specific case of the plaintiff/respondent that late Sukhi Lal had not executed the document dated 27.08.1951 and sale deed dated 30.09.1957 nor he had put any impression on the said documents, and petitioner got those documents executed by producing an impostor, therefore, documents are forged and once c