JUDGMENT : B.L.Yadav, J. 1. BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugned orders dated 14-8-1987 and 2-8-1986 passed by IVth Additional District Judge and IInd Upper Munsif Mohammadabad respectively are sought to be quashed. 2. IT appears that respondent no. 3 Smt. Duija filed a suit for cancellation of the gift deed dated 8-2-1983, and for permanent injunction alleging that the alleged gift deed was got executed by playing fraud on the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the petitioner denying plaint allegations and alleging that the suit was cognizable by Revenue Court and not by the Civil Court. In the written statement (vide paras 5, 6 and 9) it was also alleged that the plaintiff respondent no. 3 is very wise lady and the contents of the gift deed were explained to her by the Registrar at the time of registration and being fully conversant with the facts stated in the gift deed, she made signatures and no fraud was committed on her. Preliminary issue was framed whether the suit for cancellation of the gift deed was maintainable in the civil court or in the revenue court. By the impugned orders it was held that the suit was maintainable in the Civil Court. Hence present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the gift deed was void hence it required no cancellation and in respect of agricultural land suit was maintainable in the revenue court for declaration of bhumidhari rights. Reliance was placed on Kamani Rai v. Distt. Judge Budaun, 1983 ACJ 617, Mohd. Umar Khan v. Idris Mohd. Ghani, AIR 1980 Allahabad 89 and Jagdamba Prasad Singh v. Prahlad Singh, 1981 AWC 328 . 3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that in view of the provisions of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. It was for the plaintiff herself to decide as to whether the document of gift deed creates an apprehension that such instrument may cause her serious injury, and it is not for the defendant the present petitioner to advice her in the matter. Relevant paragraphs in the written statement lead to the conclusion that the defendant has filed written statement indicating that the document is perfectly genuine and valid and the same was signed by the respondent no. 3 after understanding the contents of the same. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties main point for determination is whether civil court has jurisdiction against the cause of action to the effect that the gift deed has been executed as alleged by the plaintiff respondent no. 3 by playing fraud on her and in view of the allegations in the written statement the said deed was valid and genuine. The next point is whether for cancellation of such a deed the suit was maintainable in the civil court or the deed may be taken to be void and the same need not be cancelled rather it may be ignored by plaintiff. In such matters it is not only the allegations made in the plaint which would decide the forum rather the cumulative effect of the allegations in the plaint and the allegations in the written statement including additional pleas and also the allegations in the replica have to be taken into account to infer as to whether such deed would require cancellation by the plaintiff or it was of such a nature which can be ignored. In view of section 31 of Specific Relief Act, plaintiff has right to file a suit against an instrument either the same is void or voidable provided the plaintiff has reasonable apprehension that such instrument may cause him or her injury In the instant case on the basis of allegations made in the plaint fraud was committed on the plaintiff whereas on the basis of the written statement no such fraud was committed and document was perfectly genuine. The document was not taken to be void or voidable. In such situation if the document is not cancelled, when the defendant alleges in the written statement that the document is genuine, it would certainly cause injury to the plaintiff in future. The document was not taken to be void or voidable. In such situation if the document is not cancelled, when the defendant alleges in the written statement that the document is genuine, it would certainly cause injury to the plaintiff in future. For this purpose the Parliament has enacted Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and I am of the view that the apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff was well founded and the suit for cancellation of the said document which was voidable on the basis of fradulent nature of the same was maintainable in the Civil Court. 5. As regards the cause of action of the suit particularly in view of the explanation added to Section 331 of UP ZA and LR Act, it arose as a consequence of the document being executed by the plaintiff in favour of the person in whom she has implicit faith, the said document on the basis of the plaint allegations was voidable whereas on the basis of the allegations in the written statement same was genuine and valid. 6. In a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shankar, 1968 AWR 731 it was held that on the basis of a cause of action if main relief is cognizable by a revenue court the suit would be cognizable by the revenue court, whereas if the main relief is cognizable by the civil court the suit would be cognizable by the civil court. IN the instant case main relief was for cancellation of the gift deed for which according to Section 31 of Specific Relief Act the petitioner was entitled to file suit in the civil court as the plaintiff apprehended that the existence of the said gift deed would create injury to her in future, in respect of which the defendant was more assertive in his written statement that the said gift deed was genuine and valid. Main relief was, therefore, cognizable by civil court. In Kamani Rai v. Distt. Judge Budaun, 1983 ACJ 617 sale deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of his own wife and in that case it was not mentioned in detail as to what was the case of the defendant whereas in the peresent case the defendant/present petitioners have specifically alleged in paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 etc. Judge Budaun, 1983 ACJ 617 sale deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of his own wife and in that case it was not mentioned in detail as to what was the case of the defendant whereas in the peresent case the defendant/present petitioners have specifically alleged in paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 etc. of written statement (Annexure 2) that the document was genuine and valid. Hence that case is distinguishable and is of no assistance to the petitioners 7. In Mohd. Umar Khan v. Idris Mohd. Ghani, AIR 1980 Alld. 89 it was held that whether the Civil Court or Revenue Court has jurisdiction to try a particular suit cannot be resolved merely on the basis of the relief claimed in the suit. For this purpose the pith and substance of the allegations made in the plaint will have to be scrutinised and if on those allegations some adequate or satisfactory relief can be obtained from the revenue court, the suit would be cognizable by the revenue court. IN the instant case relief for cancellation of the gift deed has been claimed and it was not a suit for permanent injunction in that case relief was different. Hence that case is also of no assistance to the petitioner. 8. In Jagdamba Prasad Singh v. Prahlad Singh, 1981 AWC 328 a suit for cancellation of sale deed alleged to have been executed by Sirdar was filed and it was held that such a suit was not cognizable in revenue court rather it was cognizable only in the civil court. IN that case in paras 5, 6 and 7 it was alleged that Raj Kumar Singh was hard of hearing and was suffering from acute disease in his leg which had to be operated and he was confined to hospital and due to these diseases his mind was affected he was not in a condition to execute any sale deed nor could he understand its import. In that case, also it was alleged that the sale deed was void and, therefore, suit would lie in revenue court. But these arguments were not accepted and it was held that the suit was for cancellation of the sale deed and such a suit would not lie in revenue court rather it would lie in civil court. In that case, also it was alleged that the sale deed was void and, therefore, suit would lie in revenue court. But these arguments were not accepted and it was held that the suit was for cancellation of the sale deed and such a suit would not lie in revenue court rather it would lie in civil court. In that case reliance was placed on Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2451 . This case is not in favour of petitioner rather it supports respondent no. 3. In view of the premises aforesaid I am of the view that in the instant case cause of action was not of such a nature where the suit could have been filed in revenue court and the deed in question being voidable could not be ignored. The suit was maintainable in Civil Court. Impugned orders are perfectly correct. Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Petition dismissed.