JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Sri G.N. Verma, learned senior Advocate and Sri Satya Prakash appearing for the respondents.
2. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 6th March, 1984 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 against the judgment and order dated 14.11.1979 passed by the Munsif, Fatehabad in Original Suit No. 273 of 1973. The original suit No. 273 of 1973 was filed by the petitioners impleading the respondent No. 2 as the defendant No. 3 and other defendants praying for a decree of declaration that the sale deed dated 3.3.1966 executed by Smt. Chadrawali in favour of the defendant No. 3 Bishan Lal is null and void. Before the trial court issue No. 4 was framed to the effect that "whether the suit is barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act ?". Learned Munsif decided the issue in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the suit is not barred. A revision was filed by the respondent No. 3 Bishan Lal which has been allowed by the revisions court. The revisional court has held that the suit is barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The order of the revisional court dated 6th March, 1984 has been challenged in this writ petition.
3. Brief facts necessary for appreciating the controversy raised in the writ petition are that the land in question was taken under consolidation proceedings under the provisions of the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The village was published under Section 9 of the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 25.2.1964 and a time barred objection was filed by Smt. Surya Kumari on 13.5.1966 claiming that the name of Smt. Chandrawali is wrongly recorded. It was further stated that Smt. Chandrawali was not entitled to execute any sale deed. The land in dispute was recorded originally in the name of one Agent Singh. Smt. Savitri Devi was his widow and Smt. Chandrawali was the widowed mother Both Smt. Savitri Devi and Smt. Chandrawali executed the sale deed. Smt. Surya Kumari was vendee from Smt. Savitri Devi and an objection under Section 9 of the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act was taken by Smt. Savitri Devi against Smt. Chandrawali. The case was that Smt. Chandrawali did not inherit after the death of Agent Singh and her name has been wrongly recorded and the sale deed executed by her was without any right. The objection of Smt. Surya Kumari was rejected and an objection under Section 11(1) of the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by Smt. Surya Kumari which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 8.5.1967. A revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which revision was also dismissed. A writ petition No. 2291 of 1969 was filed by Smt. Surya Kumari which writ petition was also dismissed by the order of this Court dated 15.12.1972. After dismissal of the above writ petition suit No. 273 of 1973 was filed by the petitioners seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 3.3.1966 is null and void.
4. Sri G.N. Verma, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner raised following two submissions :-
(i) the sale deed in question was a voidable sale deed and it was only the civil court who had jurisdiction to decide the issue and the suit was not barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(ii) Consolidation courts had not decided any issue after taking the evidence no findings have been rendered by the consolidation courts that the sale deed is void. The issue having not been decided by the consolidation courts, the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide the matter.
5. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the apex Court in A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 956 Ningawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar and Ors. and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in 1976 A. W. C. 412 Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
7. The orders passed by the consolidation officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as this Court in writ petition filed by the petitioners against the orders of the consolidation authorities are on record. The objection was filed by Smt. Surya Kumari under Section 9 A-2 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was barred by time. In the objection the case of the objectors was that Smt. Chandrawali had no right to execute the sale deed and entry of her name was a fictitious entry. The objection was rejected as barred by time which order was upheld by all the courts below.
8. A copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As noted above the relief claimed in the plaint itself was that the sale deed dated 3.3.1966 executed by Smt. Chandrawali be declared as null and void. Relevant averments made in the plaint are contained in paragraphs 2 to 7. The pleadings in the above paragraphs of the plaint are that one Agent Singh was co-sharer in plots No. 311, 315 and 316 with Om Prakash, Renuka and Sukhdei. Agent Signh died in the year 1952 leaving behind his widow Smt. Savitri Devi and mother Smt. Chandrawali. It was pleaded in paragraph 5 that Smt. Chandrawali had no right and she was not heir of Agent Singh. It was further pleaded that the name of Smt. Chandrawali was wrongly mutated in the records and on the basis of the said entry Smt. Chandrawali executed sale deed "on 3.3.1966 in favour of the defendant No. 3. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the sale deed is voidable. From the pleadings as noted above it was clear case of the plaintiff that Smt. Chandrawali had no right in the land in dispute and the sale deed executed by her was beyond her right. It is well settled that the consolidation courts/ revenue courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate and ignore a deed which is void. It is only voidable deed which requires declaration in the civil court. The legal position is well settled by the judgment of the apex Court in A.I.R. 1973 SC 2451 Gorakh Nath v. H.N. Singh.
9. The judgment of the apex Court in A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 956 Nindawwa v. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar and Ors. relied by the counsel for the petitioner was a case with regard to character of document based on fraudulent misrepresentation. The apex Court held that fraudulent misrepresentation regarding character of the document makes the document voidable. Following was laid down in paragraph 4 :-
"(4) On behalf of the respondents Mr. Naunit Lal, however stressed the argument that the trial court was wrong in holding that the gift deed was void on account of the perpetration of fraud. It was submitted that it was only a voidable transaction and the suit for setting aside the gift deed would be governed by Article 95 of the Indian Limitation Act. In our opinion, the proposition contended for by Mr. Naunit Lal must be accepted as correct. It is well established that a contract or other transaction induced or tainted by fraud is not void, but only voidable at the option of the party defrauded. Until it is avoided, the transaction is valid, so that third parties without notice of the fraud may in the meantime acquire rights and interests in the matter which they may enforce against the party defrauded."
10. The above case was a case which was considering a document which was based on fraudulent misrepresentation with regard to character of document which was a voidable document. The facts of the present case are to the opposite. In the present case the pleadings of the plaintiffs- petitioners are to the effect that Smt. Chandrawali had no right to the agricultural land since she was not the heir of Agent Singh and the sale deed executed by her was without authority and thus void. The above judgment of the apex Court does not help the petitioner.
11. The judgment of the Full Bench relied by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna reported in 1976 A.W.C. 412 was a case in which the issue considered was as to whether the suit for cancellation of voidable sale deed relating to an agricultural plot will abate under Section 5 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Full Bench held that the suit in respect of void document abate by reasons of Section 5 but the suit for cancellation of voidable deed do not abate. Following was laid down in paragraph 9 :-
'9. Shri H. N. Tilharfi contended that the use of the words "it could be urged" appearing in the Supreme Court's judgment means that their Lordships were not giving any decision but only mentioning a plausible argument. In our opinion, this cannot be the meaning of these words in the context in which they have been used. These words only mean that it could be validly urged that the Consolidation authorities had no power to cancel the deed. The subsequent part of the sentence to the effect" it must be held to be binding on them so long as it is not cancelled by a court having the power to cancel it" makes it clear that the Lordships of the Supreme Court intended to declare the law in respect of voidable documents. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Supreme Court has laid down the law in Gorakh Nath's case, A.I.R. 1973 SC 2451 that suits in respect of void documents abate by reason of Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, but the suits for cancellation of voidable sale deeds do not abate."
12. The proposition laid down by the Full Bench judgment is well settled. The document in view of the authority of the Full Bench above quoted, which are void can be adjudicated and decided by the consolidation courts. As observed above the sale deed in question whose declaration has been sought by the plaintiffs in the civil courts on own pleadings of the plaintiffs is a void document. The consolidation courts had every jurisdiction to adjudicate with regard to sale deed in question and in fact objection under Section 9-A(2), of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by Smt. Surya Kumari challenging the right of Smt. Chandrawali on the agricultural land on the ground that she had no right. The objection was rejected which order was upheld upto the High Court.
13. In view of the forgoing discussions the revisional court has rightly taken the view that the suit filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners is barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. No error has been committed by the revisional court in allowing the revision filed by the respondent No. 2. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.