JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. 1. The question raised through this petition is whether a suit for cancellation of a sale deed executed in respect of agricultural land governed by the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951), hereinafter called 'the Act', on the basis that the same is void as it was executed by a fictitious person, lies in the Civil Court or in the Revenue Court. This question has cropped up before this Court on several occasions. There were conflict of decisions and, therefore, in the year 1968 a Full Bench of three Judges was constituted to resolve the conflict. The Full Bench gave its opinion on September 18, 1968 in the case of Ram Awalamb and others v. Jata Shanker and others (1968 A.L.J. 1108). After the Full Bench had given its opinion it was thought that the controversy had been resolved but unfortunately the controversy continues to rage. The controversy centres round interpretation of Section 331 of 'the Act'. 2. In Ram Awalamb's case (supra) the Full Bench observed at page 1125 as follows: A document under which the plaintiff's share also purports to have been transferred by a person not authorised to do so, can be cancelled through court to the extent of the plaintiff's share and after a decree has been passed in his favour, information regarding it has to be sent to the registration department for making a note in their register. To have a document adjudged void or voidable is provided for under Sec. 31 of the Specific Relief Act and cannot be considered to be altogether unnecessary because after a lapse of several years the unchallenged existence of such documents can cause difficulty to the plaintiff in establishing his title to the land of his share 3. To the argument that the suit for cancellation of sale deed actually involved a declaration of title, the following reply was given by the Full Bench : .. the plaintiff was not bound to ask for a mere declaration of his title in respect of the joint land when he could pray for cancellation of the entire sale deed or at least a part of it. the plaintiff was not bound to ask for a mere declaration of his title in respect of the joint land when he could pray for cancellation of the entire sale deed or at least a part of it. In short the relief's for declaration and partition could not be said to be effective alternative relief for the cancellation of the sale deeds in respect of the whole or part of the joint property. 4. In Ramdhari v. Jodhan and others ( 1972 AWR 623 ), K.B. Asthana, J. held that the suit for cancellation of sale deed on the basis that the same was void was cognizable by the Civil Court. The same view was expressed by R. M. Sahai, J. in Jagdamba Prasad Singh v. Prahlad Singh, (1980 ALJ 1135). The view was reiterated by T.S. Misra, J. in Rameshwar Prasad v. 1st Additional District Judge, Gonda and others, (1981 LLJ 137). The question was again raised before me in Indra Deo and others v. Smt. Ram Pyari and others in (FAFO No. 45 of 1978 decided on 1.4.1982). In this case I held that the suit for cancellation of sale deed would be maintainable in the Civil Court irrespective of the fact whether the sale deed was alleged to be void or voidable. 5. When the present petition was presented before me it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the view expressed in the Single Judge cases referred to above was in conflict with the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Ayodhia Prasad v. Gangotari Devi (l98l LLJ 40). The Division Bench comprised of Hari Swarup and K. N. Goyal JJ. In this case declaration was sought to the effect that the plaintiff was the sirdar of the land in dispute. It was further prayed that the decree for possession be also passed in case the plaintiff was found to be out of possession. Two more prayers were made in the plaint; one was for cancellation of the sale deed, and another for issue of injunction. It was further prayed that the decree for possession be also passed in case the plaintiff was found to be out of possession. Two more prayers were made in the plaint; one was for cancellation of the sale deed, and another for issue of injunction. Relying upon (1973 RD (SC) 365) Chandrika Misir and others v. Bhaiyalal and (1976 LLJ 52) (FB) Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna, the Division Bench held that the real cause of action in the suit was interference or threatened invasion to the plaintiff's right over an agricultural holding and in respect of this cause of action, relief could be claimed before the revenue court. On this basis it was held that the suit lay in the revenue court and not in the Civil Court. From a perusal of the record it appears that neither the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Awalamb's case was cited nor the Single Judge decisions of K.B. Asthana, J. and R.M. Sahai, J. It may further be pointed out that their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chandrika Misir's case (supra) were not dealing with a suit for cancellation of sale deed but were dealing with a suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession. Their Lordships found that according to the findings recorded by the courts below the plaintiff was out of possession and, therefore, the suit was actually one for possession under section 209 of 'the Act'. On this basis it was held that the suit was cognizable by the revenue court which alone had Jurisdiction under 'the Act' to pass a decree for possession. The Full Bench decision did not involve interpretation of Section 331 of the Act but involved interpretation of Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 6. Another decision brought to my notice was made by the Hon'ble Satish Chandra, Chief Justice in Shankat Alt v. Katnal Alias Abdullah and others (1980 LLJ 243). This decision as well as the decision of the Division Bench referred to above were not brought to my notice when I decided the case Indra Deo (supra). In Shaukat Ali's case, Hon'ble the Chief Justice relied upon a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain Singh ( AIR 1973 SC 2451 ). In Shaukat Ali's case, Hon'ble the Chief Justice relied upon a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain Singh ( AIR 1973 SC 2451 ). This was a revision arising from a suit for cancellation of sale deed on the basis that the same was executed by a fictitious person. In other words the plaintiff's claim was that the sate deed was void. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court it was held that the suit was cognizable by the revenue court. The Supreme Court decision in Gorakh Nath's case was not concerned with Section 331 of 'the Act' but with Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 7. The above conflicting decisions do cause uncertainty in law and it is desirable that the conflict should be resolved by an authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench. 8. I am not formulating any question for reference because (he only question involved in the petition is whether a suit for cancellation of a void document lies in the Civil Court or in the revenue court and decision of this question will finally dispose of the writ petition itself. Instead, therefore, of referring a specific question to the Full Bench, I propose reference of the whole case to the Full Bench. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is admitted. Issue notice to opposite party no. 3. Notice on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 having been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. The Joint Registrar of the Court shall place the papers of this case before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Since petitions of this nature are filed quite frequently it is desirable that the controversy may be resolved at an early date. (Reference proposed)