JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, M. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated October 21, 1974 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, arising out of a suit under section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs brought a suit claiming co-tenancy rights in the land in suit saying that the sale deed executed by Smt. Sugia tenure-holder, was a fraudulent one and hence could not be given effect to. Both the courts below have held that the sale deed was not a genuine document and it has not been duly proved and accordingly proceeded to grant a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. 3. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the revenue courts have no jurisdiction to decide that the sale deed in question is a fraudulent transaction and not genuine. He submitted that unless the sale deed is rendered inoperative and cancelled by the competent court the plaintiff-respondents could not get the relief sought for by the revenue courts. He, therefore, submitted that without cancellation of the sale deed, for which the jurisdiction lies only with the civil court, revenue court could not grant a declaration sought by the plaintiff-respondents. Hence he argued that the decree of the courts below is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 4. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the main relief claimed in this case was of co-tenancy and not of cancellation of the sale deed and as such the revenue courts has jurisdiction and can decide the claim of the plaintiff. 5. I have considered the arguments and gone through the record of the case. The main point to be decided in this case is what is the main relief that has been claimed by the plaintiff. In case if is found that the main relief is the cancellation of avoidance of the sale deed then the jurisdiction will lie with the Civil Court but in case the main relief is that of co-tenancy the jurisdiction will lie with the Revenue Court. The Hon'ble High Court have given clear cut direction how the question of jurisdiction of the Civil and Revenue Courts should be decided. The Hon'ble High Court have given clear cut direction how the question of jurisdiction of the Civil and Revenue Courts should be decided. They have observed in a case reported in 1968 R.D. 470 that where in a suit one of the reliefs is cognizable only the Civil Court and atleast one relief is cognizable only the Revenue Court, further questions which would arise is whether all the reliefs are based on the some cause of action. If the court finds that the main relief asked for on the basis of that cause of action is such as can be granted only by a Revenue Court then the jurisdiction will be that of the Revenue Court but when the real and substantial relief is gran table only by the Civil Court then the jurisdiction must vest in the Civil Court. Thus the point to be examined in this case is whether the main relief is cognizable by a Revenue Court or by a Civil Court. In the present case the ostensible relief sought is that of Co-tenancy but this relief can be granted only when the sale deed executed by Smt. Sugia is held to be fraudulent and is cancelled. In this behalf the observations of the Hon'ble High Court in 1966 ALJ page 1085 are relevant. The Hon'ble High Court have observed that if the document was void ab initio, for instance which had been executed by a minor, then the document being completely void, a declaration of title to the property or even possession could be granted by the Revenue Court without cancelling the sale deed. The revenue courts would look into the facts and after coming to the conclusion that the sale deed was completely void and ineffectual could have given a declaration. But in cases where avoidance of document is necessary the position would be different. Applying this principle to the present case I find that the main relief sought in the case is the cancellation of the sale deed by Smt. Sugia, which is not a void document ab initio. The real cause of action of the plaintiffs is the cancellation of the sale deed which they alleged to have been obtained fraudulently. The sale seed is a voidable document. The real cause of action of the plaintiffs is the cancellation of the sale deed which they alleged to have been obtained fraudulently. The sale seed is a voidable document. The title which it passes to the defendants would continue with the defendants so long as the sale deed is not cancelled and no relief can be granted to the plaintiff unless the sale deed is first declared to be void and cancelled. In my opinion the Revenue Court can give a declaration to the plaintiff only when the sale deed is got cancelled. But so long as it stands their claim cannot be entertained by the Revenue Court. 6. In this view of the matter I find that the second appeal must succeed and is hereby allowed. Accordingly the orders of the courts below are set aside with the direction that the plaintiffs should first approach the Civil Court and get the sale deed cancelled before they can claim relief in the Revenue Court.