JUDGMENT P.N. Goel, J. - This is a defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13-10-1969 passed by 2nd Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Banda in civil appeal No. 13 of 1969. 2. Sonwa, plaintiff respondent, and Ram Asrey, defendant appellant No. 4, had purchased bhumidhari land No. 4146 measuring 1 bigha in the year 1964 from one Babu Lal. In this way they became joint owners of the said land and were in joint possession thereof. Karat u, Hanuman and Mahabir defendants appellants 1 to 3 are real brothers of Ram Asrey. On 15-10-1966 there came into existence a sale deed purporting to have been executed by Sonwa, respondent, in favour of appellants 1 to 3. The appellants 1 to 3 then applied for mutation of their names in place of the respondent. Mutation order was passed in their favour. The respondent came to know of all these in the beginning of October 1966. Then in June 1967, appellant No. 4 in collusion with appellants Nos. 1 to 3 made two kothas and a court-yard shown by letters ABFEDC on a portion of the plot in question and at the southern extremity of the plot a boundary wall was constructed. The respondent asserted that the appellant No. 4 did so against his consent and without getting his share partitioned. Consequently on 7-10-1967, the respondent filed suit for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground of fraud played upon him and for demolition of the constructions ABFEDC and boundary wall D-l and D-2 shown in the sketch map given at the foot of the plaint. 3. The particulars of the fraud alleged in the plaint are that appellant No. 4 wanted to give his share to his brothers appellants Nos. 1 to 3 and asked the respondent to sign on the deed in token of his consent. Therefore, the respondent signed on the alleged sale-deed. 4. The suit was contested by the appellants. The Munsif, Banda, who tried the suit dismissed the respondents suit. The respondent then filed appeal before the District Judge, which was decided by 2nd Temporary Civil Judge. The lower appellate court granted both the reliefs to the respondent. He also granted decree of joint possession to the respondent along with appellant No. 4. 5. The Munsif, Banda, who tried the suit dismissed the respondents suit. The respondent then filed appeal before the District Judge, which was decided by 2nd Temporary Civil Judge. The lower appellate court granted both the reliefs to the respondent. He also granted decree of joint possession to the respondent along with appellant No. 4. 5. The lower appellate court has recorded a clear finding that the sale-deed dated 15-1-1966 was obtained from the respondent by Ram Asrey, appellant No. 4, by practising fraud and misrepresentation. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants firstly contended that as the dispute related to bhumidhari land the suit was not maintainable in civil courts and that the respondent should have filed suit for declaration of his rights in the revenue court. 7. It will be noticed that the respondent claimed cancellation of the sale deed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. A transaction which comes into existence as a result of fraud and misrepresentation is voidable and not void. Therefore, it was necessary for the aggrieved person to bring a suit for the cancellation of the sale deed. If the transaction had been absolutely void, then he could ignore it and bring a suit in the revenue court for declaration of his right. This legal position is not disputed by the appellants counsel. Therefore the present suit could be maintained in the civil courts. 8. The appellants counsel then contended that the constructions in question were built by appellant No. 4 who was undisputedly a joint owner, that as he had built the constructions on a portion which is less than half of the area purchased by the respondent and appellant No. 4 jointly, the respondent No. 4 could easily sue for partition and in that case the equities could be adjusted by the court partitioning the land. In support of his contention reliance was placed on the following observations made in the case of Chhedi Lal v. Chhotey Lal, AIR 1951 All 199 (FB). "................ It appears to us that the question of the right of co-sharers in respect of the joint land should be kept separate and distinct from the question as to what relief should be granted to a co-sharer, whose right in respect of joint land has been invaded by the other co-sharers either by exclusively appropriating and cultivating tend or by raising constructions thereon. The conflict in some of the decisions has apparently risen from the confusion of the two distinct matters. While therefore a co-sharer is entitled to object to another co-sharer exclusively appropriating land to himself to the detriment of other co-sharers, the question as to what relief should be granted to the plaintiff in the event of the invasion of his rights will depend upon the circumstances of each case. The right to the relief for demolition and injunction will be granted or withheld by the Court according as the circumstances established in the case justify. The court may feel persuaded to grant both the reliefs if the evidence establishes that the plaintiff cannot be adequately compensated at the time of the partition and that greater injury will result to him by the refusal of the relief than by granting it. On the contrary if material and substantial injury will be caused to the defendant by the granting of the relief, the Court will no doubt be exercising proper discretion in withholding such relief. As has been pointed out in some of the cases, each case will be decided upon its own peculiar facts and it will be left to the Court to exercise its discretion upon proof of circumstances showing on which side the balance of convenience lies." In the present case the respondent and appellant No. 4 were joint owners for having purchased the land in the year 1964 jointly. Their share is obviously half and half. According to the allegations of the plaint, the appellant No. 4 had made the complained of constructions. The constructions i.e. kothas and court-yard obviously occupy less than half of the area purchased. A little more than half area is still lying vacant. This vacant portion can easily be allotted to the respondent. The constructions were made in June 1967. The respondent did not immediately take any action in the matter. He filed suit in the beginning of October, 1967 despite the fact that he came to know about a year before in October, 1966 that fraud had been played upon him in the matter of sale deed dated 15-1-19645. It means that the respondent allowed the appellant No. 4 to make the constructions. 9. He filed suit in the beginning of October, 1967 despite the fact that he came to know about a year before in October, 1966 that fraud had been played upon him in the matter of sale deed dated 15-1-19645. It means that the respondent allowed the appellant No. 4 to make the constructions. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that Rasta was to the north of the suit land and that appellant No. 4 had made a wall at the southern extremity of the plot. At the time of partition the Court partitioning the land can take these facts into consideration. It can easily allot the southern wall to the respondent and if necessary compensation in this respect can be ordered to be paid by the respondent to the appellant No. 4. The Court partitioning the land can also make provision for the passage to the respondent to the west of the kothas and angan built by the appellant. No. 4. The sketch may in the plaint as well as the map in the decree indicate sufficient land for this purpose to the west of the kothas and courtyard built by appellant No. 4. 10. So far as appellants Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, they cannot' claim any rights against the respondent on the basis of the sale deed dated 15-1-1966 and consequent mutation in their favour. 11. No other point was urged. 12. In the result the decree for cancellation of the sale-deed and for recovery of joint possession over the disputed plot No. 4146 passed by the lower appellate court shall stand and the decree for demolition of the construction in suit built by appellant No. 4 in collusion with appellants Nos. 1 to 3 shall, however, stand set aside. The appeal will thus stand partly allowed and partly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the appellants will pay half of the costs to the plaintiff respondent.