JUDGMENT Nathoo Lal, Member - This is a revision preferred against the order dated 15-1-1985 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad in revision no. 60 of 82-83 filed against the order dated 27-1-1983 passed by Assistant Collector First Class Kanpur-Dehat in case no. 3/86-87 Sukhbasi v. Ranjit and others under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindan Abolition and Land Reforms Act, to be called the "Act" hereinafter. 2. Briefly speaking the facts of the case are that during the trial of the suit brought by respondent-plaintiff Sukhbasi against the revisionist Ranjit and two others seeking relief of cotenancy with the defendant-appellant with co-bhumidhari rights which was contested by the appellant. Five issues were framed out of which issue no. 1 relating to the jurisdiction of the court was decided as a preliminary issue holding that the revenue court has got jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute between the parties under his Judgement and order dated 27-1-1983. Feeling aggrieved the defendant came in revision before the Commissioner which has been decided by the Additional Commissioner under his Judgement and order dated 15-1-1985 whereby the revision has been dismissed giving rise to the second revision in this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. None appeared for the opposite-party. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that in the written-statement filed by the revisionist it was pleaded that since the land in dispute was acquired by the defendant under a registered sale deed from the deceased tenant of the land and the same sale-deed has been challenged by the plaintiff saying that it is a farzi and void document and therefore unless this sale deed is cancelled by the civil court having a competent jurisdiction the revenue court has got no jurisdiction to decide the matter in dispute. The learned counsel has cited 1978 R.D. page 240 and 1968 R.D. page 470 in support of his contentions. 5. From the perusal of the record and the orders passed by the learned courts below it appears that the main disputed point and bone of contention between the parties is the fact relating to the execution of the alleged sale-deed by the deceased tenant in favour of the appellant-defendant. 5. From the perusal of the record and the orders passed by the learned courts below it appears that the main disputed point and bone of contention between the parties is the fact relating to the execution of the alleged sale-deed by the deceased tenant in favour of the appellant-defendant. The question of execution of sale-deed can be decided by the revenue courts itself and mere registration of the document is not enough to prove the execution also The parties can be given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions and if the execution of the document is proved by factual as well as by circumstance all evidence containing oral and documentary evidence both the revenue court can record its findings whether the document was executed or not it as for the cancellation of such registered sale-deed only that the civil courts are competent to exercise jurisdiction but here the question of cancellation of sale-deed is not involved and the only dispute is that the plaintiff 'says that no such sale-deed was actually execute by the deceased tenant while the defendant-appellant pleads that it was executed in his favour and the admitted fact is that the deceased tenant was the real brother of both the plaintiff and the defendant and the alleged sale-deed is said to have been executed when the deceased tenant was at the death bed. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no question of inviting the jurisdiction of the civil court for deciding the dispute relating to the execution of sale-deed. 6. In view of the observations made above, this revision having no force is dismissed and the case is remanded back to the trial court to proceed with the trial afresh.