JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 196 filed by the defendants Ram Samujh and Ram Chander against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner. Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 4-4-1986 allowing the appeal against the judgment and decree of the S.D.O. Bahraich dated 28-2-1985 whereby he had dismissed the suit of the respondent Radhey Shyam under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land in dispute belong to one Smt. Sona who had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendants Ram Samujh and Ram Chander on 3-4-1978. Subsequently he executed a will in favour of the plaintiff on 15-7-1979. The defendants got their names on the basis of gift deed and the plaintiff Radhey Shyam brought this suit with the allegation that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants was result of fraud and mis-representation and therefore, no right accrued to the defendants and that the plaintiff should be declared sole bhumidhar. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant claiming the sale deed to be valid and neither forged nor fictitious nor obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. 4. The trial court accepted the defence version and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 5. On appeal that judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed on the ground that the learned Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that the sale deed had been executed in suspicious circumstances and, therefore, could not be relied upon. This appeal has been preferred against the same judgment and decree. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 7. So far as the execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent is concerned this face is clearly admitted by the plaintiff in para No. 2 of the plaint. The only allegation made by the plaintiff is that the said sale deed is a result of fraud and misrepresentation but its execution is not denied. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant argued that since the execution of the document admitted by the plaintiff, hence this court has no option but to accept the sale deed enforce to act upon it and cannot avoid it and that it is only the Civil Court which can cancel it. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant argued that since the execution of the document admitted by the plaintiff, hence this court has no option but to accept the sale deed enforce to act upon it and cannot avoid it and that it is only the Civil Court which can cancel it. He further argued that until the sale deed is cancelled it has to be accepted by the revenue court. 9. I find force in the argument. The execution of the sale deed is not denied by the plaintiff and so even if his allegation is accepted for argument sake the such document has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation it would remain only a voidable document and not a void one. A revenue court is competent to ignore void document but it cannot reject a voidable document while it is cancelled by a competent Civil Court. There is no evidence or record to indicate that such sale deed has been got cancelled by the plaintiff or the original executant by the Civil Court. Consequently so long this document stand it is a valid piece of instrument for the purpose of the revenue courts and so the defendant's name has rightly been mutated in the papers and plaintiff cannot claim any title. Moreover since the rights of Smt. M. Sona had been transferred during her own life-time and she did not get the sale deed cancelled so there is no question of the vesting or rights in the plaintiff on her death by virtue of the will. The plaintiff's suit was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the trial court. The learned Additional Commissioner without properly appreciating the law and facts wrongly allowed appeal, hence his judgment and decree passed by him deserves to be set aside. 10. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgments and decree passed by the learned Additional Commissioner are set aside and passed by the trial court are upheld.