ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment of the appellate court dated 16-7-82 whereby the order of the Trial Court abating the suit under S. 5(2) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, has been set aside. The plaintiff-opposite party 2 in the present writ petition filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed alleged to have been executed by Hit Karan Singh in favour of the defendants-petitioners. 2. The main allegations for attacking the sale deed are that the sale deed was executed in favour of contesting defendants with regard to the property mentioned in Schedule 'C', but fraudulently the plots mentioned in Schedules `A' and `B'.were also incorporated in the sale deed. It has also been alleged that the tenure holder had not obtained requisite permission for executing the sale deed in respect of the plots sold, hence the sale deed was void. 3. The defence in the case was that the civil court had no jurisdiction and that the document challenged by the plaintiff-opposite party was really a void document on the allegations made in the plaint, hence the suit was liable to be abated under S. 5(2), U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 4. The trial court through its order dated 3-2-1981 accepted the defence and abated the suit. In appeal the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and has set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the judgment of the lower appellate court is patently erroneous as the challenged document was void and the consolidation authorities are quite competent to decide the title of the parties with regard to the disputed land. Therefore, the trial court was right in abating the suit. He has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1969 Rev. Dec. 429 Jagannath Shukla v. Sitaram. He has also contended that on the allegations in the plaint the alleged sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants-petitioners without obtaining requisite permission under S. 5, U.P. .Consolidation of Holdings Act, hence the document was void and for this proposition he has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1969 Rev. Dec. 434 Janta Junior High School v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. U.P. During the course of arguments he has also referred to the ruling reported in 1973 Rev. Dec. Dec. 434 Janta Junior High School v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. U.P. During the course of arguments he has also referred to the ruling reported in 1973 Rev. Dec. 430 Gorakh Nath Dube V. Hari Narain Singh and has contended that as the deed under consideration being void the suit should have been abated. The lower appellate court has patently erred in taking a contrary view. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- opposite party has submitted in reply that the appellate court has taken a correct view in the circumstances of the present case. According to him the suit was for cancellation of the sale deed hence the civil Court alone had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. Therefore, the lower appellate court has correctly set aside the judgment of the trial court and has directed the suit to proceed before the civil court. In this connection the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1981 All WC 328: (1980 All LJ 1135) Jagdamba Prasad Singh v. Prahlad Singh. He has also placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1981 All LJ 789 Rama Shanker Misra v. Kashi Misra and has tried to support the impugned judgment of the appellate court. 7. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff-opposite party had challenged the sale deed in question on the ground of its being void as well as voidable. The petitioners in their defence had taken a plea that the sale deed was executed by the tenure-holder after obtaining valid permission with a view to get the sale deed upheld by the civil court. During the pendency of the suit it has been urged that on the allegations in the plaint the suit deserves to be abated. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the plaint and various authorities cited by the counsel for the parties I think that the challenged sale deed is on the allegations in the plaint a void document. When the document is void, the consolidation authorities have ample jurisdiction to deal with the claims on the litigants. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the plaint and various authorities cited by the counsel for the parties I think that the challenged sale deed is on the allegations in the plaint a void document. When the document is void, the consolidation authorities have ample jurisdiction to deal with the claims on the litigants. In 1979 All WC 524 Sheopal v. Smt., Lakhpata a Division Bench of this Court relying upon a Supreme Court case as well as a Full Bench decision of this Court has held in para 11 of its judgment as below : "..... In our opinion, the allegations in the plaint are such that the relief can be granted by the Consolidation courts. We find support for our view from a Full Bench decision of this court in Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna 1976 All WC 412. The observations of the Full Bench may be quoted as follows : "We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Supreme Court has laid down the law in Gorakh Nath's case AIR 1973 SC 2451 that suits in respect of void documents abate by reason of S. 5(2), U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, but the suits for cancellation of voidable deeds do not abate". 9. In the present case I think that on the allegations,in the plaint the document is a void document, hence the trial court was right in abating the suit and the lower appellate court has patently erred in taking a contrary view. As regards the case reported in 1981 All LJ 789 Rama Shankar Misra v. Kashi Misra relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party it is sufficient to indicate that that case is inapplicable because it dealt with a voidable document. 10. Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party and reported in 1981 All WC 328: (1980 " All LJ 1135) Jagdamba Prasad Singh v. Prahlad Singh is also not relevant to the pint under my consideration. The learned Single Judge in that case has dealt with the question whether the suit for challenging the document as voidable document would lie in the civil court or revenue court. The learned Single Judge in that case has dealt with the question whether the suit for challenging the document as voidable document would lie in the civil court or revenue court. The aforesaid document did not deal with the provisions of S. 5 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hence I think that the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party cannot derive any useful benefit out of the observations made in that case. To my mind the aforesaid case is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In view of my above conclusions it is not necessary to deal with the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioners. It is well known if a document is against the provisions of law and according to the provisions of law the document could be void in the eye of law and it needs no cancellation. Wherever the question of validity of such document arises the court ignored that document and dealt with the claims of the litigants. Since the judgment of the Trial Court is in consonance with the ruling reported in 1979 All WC 524 Sheopal v. Smt. Lakhpata and the appellate court has not dealt with the question of abatement of the suit in the light of the provisions of S. 5 sub-cl. (2) U.P.C.H. Act, and the relevant rulings on that point, I think that the appellate court has patently erred in arriving at its conclusion. Even if a suit is cognizable by the civil court and the provisions of S. 5 sub-cl. (2) U.P.C.H. Act, are attracted, the suit is bound to abate under that provision and this aspect of the matter has escaped notice of the lower appellate court, hence its judgment deserves to be quashed. 12. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the appellate court dated 16-7-1982 in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1981 Mata Charan v. Smt. Amla Devi is hereby quashed and it is expected that the parties-shall seek their remedy before the consolidation authorities. There would be no order as to costs.