JUDGMENT K. C. Agarwal, J. 1. THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Kamla Singh challenging the judgment of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, allowing the appeals nos. 266 of 1980 and 272 of 1980. 2. IT appears that Smt. Mewati, the plaintiff of suit no. 615 of 1974 sought the relief of cancellation of a will dated 8-7-1969 alleged to have been executed by Sakal Singh in favour of the petitioner defendant, Kamla Singh. On the basis of the pedigree Smt. Mewati claimed that Sakal Singh had two wives, herself and Smt. Jagrani. On his death the property was inherited by her and Smt. Jagrani; but Kamla Singh had set up a will dated 8-7-1969 alleged to have been executed by Sakal Singh which in fact was void as Sakal Singh had not bequeathed the property by means of any will to Kamla Singh, Suit No. 693 of 1976 was filed by Kamla Singh, the petitioner against Smt. Mewati, the plaintiff of suit no. 615 of 1974 for cancellation of the gift deed dated 31-8-1971 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Jagrani in favour of Smt. Mewati. The allegations made in the plaint by Kamla Singh, were that under a will dated 8-7-1969 executed by Sakal Singh in his favour, he became the owner of the property in January, 1970 whan Sakal Singh died. After the death of Sakal Singh he also entered into possession and his name was mutated. Subsequently Smt. Jagrani who had no right, title or interest, executed a gift deed on 31-8-1971 in favour of Smt. Mewati, hence this suit was filed for cancellation of the same. 3. BOTH the suits were contested. Suit no. 615 of 1974 was contested by Kamla Singh whereas suit no. 693 of 1976 was contested by Smt. Mewati. 4. ON the pleadings of the parties one of the questions which arose for decision before the trial court was about the jurisdiction. The plea was that as the document, on the allegations made in the plaint by Smt. Mewati was void, the suit in the Civil Court was not maintainable in view of section 331 of the UP ZA and LR Act, and that the revenue court exclusively had jurisdiction to try the same. A similar plea of jurisdiction had been raised in the suit filed by Kamla Singh. A similar plea of jurisdiction had been raised in the suit filed by Kamla Singh. The assertion of Smt. Mewati was that on that allegations made in the plaint the gift deed dated 31-8-1971 was void, hence the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court. By the judgment dated 3-10-1980 the Additional Munsif, Gorakhpur upheld the plea of jurisdiction and held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain either of the suits. On that basis the plaints were directed to be returned for presentation to Revenue Court. Aggrieved by this judgment, Smt. Mewati preferred Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1980, whereas Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1980 had been filed by Kamla Singh. Both these appears were consolidated and decided by the judgment dated 18-3-1981. The learned Additional District Judge held that as the documents referred to above were required to be cancelled, the suits were maintainable in the Civil Court. According to his view the documents were voidable and not void. 5. AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid judgment Kamla Singh has filed the present writ petition and has prayed for quashing the same. 6. AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that on the allegations made in the plaints of the two suits, the documents will dated 8-7-1969 and the gift deed dated 31-8-1971 whereby the basic allegation made for cancellation of these documents were that the executants of these deeds had no right, title or interest to convey any title. On these allegations, it would appear that the documents were void and the suits in respect of them had to be filed in the Revenue Court. Consequently I allow the writ petition, quash the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur dated 18-3-1981, as a result of which the judgment of the learned Additional Munsif holding that the two suits were not congnizable by the Civil Court would be upheld and their plaints would be liable to be returned for presentation to the Revenue Court. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.