JUDGMENT

A.K. Sharma, M. - This reference has been received from the learned Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, in a Revision Petition filed by Kewal, against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Budaun, dated May 12, 1975, passed as a finding on issue No. 5 in a suit under section 229, 219, Z.A. and L.R. Act. In the reference rejection of the revision is recommended.

2. Issue No. Was: 'Whether the revenue courts are competent to try such case where the validity of the sale deed is challenged in a civil court'. The learned S.D.O. gave the finding that the Revenue courts were competent to do so. In Revision the Addl. Commissioner agreeing with the view of the Trial court has recommended on August 22, 1975 that the Revision petition be rejected and has added that only one issued has been decided so far and the Revision against this given finding was not maintainable also under section 33, Z.A. and L.R. Act.

3. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the plaint shows that the relief sought is cancellation of one out of the two sale deeds and that the cause of action is the defendants sale deed on the basis of which defendant's name has already bee