JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - How disturbing it is that in spite of the best efforts of this Courts as well of the Supreme Courts, the controversy regarding the vexed question of exclusive jurisdiction between Civil and Revenue Courts has yet not come to an end. It is still alive. Here again is a case where the parties have been quarrelling over said point. 2. Facts in brief are as follow : Defendants are the petitioners. Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed a suit the court of Munsif, Ballia for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 21-10-1981 on the ground that Ram Preet Singh, the petitioner father, got a sale-deed fraudulently executed through some imposter who claimed himself to be Tribhuwan, respondent No. 5. 3. Petitioners filed a written statement denying the plaint averment. They raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the plaint. According to them the suit was cognisable by Revenue Court. 4. The trial court decided the preliminary objection of jurisdiction as issue No. 1 under Order XIV Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code holding that the Civil Court had jurisdiction. Petitioners filed a revision. It was dismissed on 30-8-1991 against which the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at grate length and pursued the record. His contention is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. 6. Let us first come to the basic petitioner in the Civil Procedure Code regarding the question of Jurisdiction. Section 9 of the Code Provides - "The Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred." A suit is which the right to property or to an office is contested, is a suit of civil nature. Admittedly in this case plaintiffs right to property is involved. Normally Civil Court has jurisdiction unless the defendant, who is challenging the jurisdiction, established otherwise. The law is well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has to be strictly construed. Abdul Wahid Khan v. Bhawani, AIR 1966 SC 1718 . 7. In order to determine the jurisdiction of the Civil and Revenue Court it is the pith and substance of the allegations made in the plaint constituting the cause of action which has to be scrutinised. Abdul Wahid Khan v. Bhawani, AIR 1966 SC 1718 . 7. In order to determine the jurisdiction of the Civil and Revenue Court it is the pith and substance of the allegations made in the plaint constituting the cause of action which has to be scrutinised. The court has to examine whether on the same cause of action any adequate or satisfactory alternative remedy could be available to the plaintiff in the Revenue Court. If several alternative ancillary relief connected with each other can be claimed on the basis of the cause of action set forth in the plaint, it has to be examined which of them is the main relief and which are ancillary reliefs, if upon considerations of the facts constituting the cause of action the main relief is such which can be granted by the Civil Court, the suit will be cognisable the Civil Court and it will proceed to grant ancillary reliefs also. On the other hand, if the main relief is cognisable by the Revenue Court, only then the suit will lie in the Revenue Court. Ram Awalamb v. Jata Shanker, 1968 ALJ 1108. 8. The avernment made in the plaint show that the plaintiff has not only challenged the contents of the documents but has also denied the execution itself. It has been stated that petitioner father Ram Preet Singh had committed fraud in bringing into existence the said deed. 9. There is no doubt that the relief for cancellation of an instrument is founded upon administration of protective justice for the fear that the instrument may be vexatiously of injuriously used by the defendant against the plaintiff. The document may throw cloud or suspicion over the title or interest. This protection is contained in Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. According to it three conditions are pre-requisite for the exercise of Jurisdiction to cancel the instrument. 1. the instrument is void or voidable against the plaintiff, 2. the plaintiff may reasonably apprehend serious injury by the instrument being left outstanding. 3. in the circumstances, the court considers it proper to grant this relief or preventive justice. Thus, according to this section the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to cancel void as well as voidable document, it does not make any reservation. 10. the plaintiff may reasonably apprehend serious injury by the instrument being left outstanding. 3. in the circumstances, the court considers it proper to grant this relief or preventive justice. Thus, according to this section the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to cancel void as well as voidable document, it does not make any reservation. 10. Now let me examine how the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 11. The scope of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act and bar of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act have been earlier considered in the case reported Batasar and others v. Udit Nrain Upadhyaya, 1970 AWC 201 and another case reported in Jagdamba Prasad Singh, Prahlad Singh, 1980 ALJ 1135. In this case Hon'ble R.M. Sahai, J. as he then was observed : "Examining the validity of sale-deed in suit cognisable by revenue court is not the same thing as saying that a suit for cancellation of void document is cognisable only in revenue court. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted is shall mean that suit for cancellation of voidable documents would lie in Civil Court whereas of void documents in revenue court. This however, is fallacious. Both the suits are cognisable in Civil Court....." In this case reference was made to a case in Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2451 in which only this much was held that if the document is void it can be ignored and, therefore, revenue court can look into it but no where it has been stated that the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed lies in the revenue court. 12. In the case reported in Rameshwar Prasad v. 1st addl. District Judge Gonda, 1981 LLJ 137 the cancellation of the sale-deed was sought on the ground that the same was void in as much as though the deed purporting to have been executed by him, he had in fact not executed the same. Some imposter did it. The court held that such a suit was cognisable in Civil Court. 13. A similar question was considered in the case of Indra Deo v. Smt. Ram Pyari, 1982 AIR 517. Some imposter did it. The court held that such a suit was cognisable in Civil Court. 13. A similar question was considered in the case of Indra Deo v. Smt. Ram Pyari, 1982 AIR 517. The learned judge followed the views taken in the case of Batasar, Jagdamba and Rameshwar Prasad (supra) and held that a suit for cancellation of ever a void sale-deed will lie in Civil Court. 14. An additional point was decided by the Court considering the scope of sub-clause (3) of Section 229-B of the U.P. Zaimindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The necessity of filing a suit under Section 229-B for declaration of bhumidhari rights would arise only when the plaintiffs title is not recognised either by the State Government or by the Gaon Sabha. The occasion for filing such a suit will not arise when the title of the plaintiff is denied by a person other than the State Government or the Gaon Sabha. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be barred when a declaration is sought against a person who has transferred the agricultural land which the plaintiff claims to be his own. Section 229-B does not contemplate all kinds of declaratory suit. It deals with declaratory suit of the specified type. It was held that such a suit would no be barred even if it was held that suit for declaration would be sufficient to protect the interest of the plaintiff. 15. A contrary view was pressed by a Division Bench in the case of Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri Prasad, 1981 AWC. 469. In order to resolve the controversy the matter was referred to Full Bench. The Full Bench while deciding the case of Ram Padrath v. Addl. Judge and others, 1989 A.W.C. 290, affirmed the view taken in the case of Indra Deo (supra) and held that the contrary view taken in the case of Dr. Ayodhya Prasad was not a good law. 16. In the case of Ram Padarath (supra) also as suit for cancellation of sale-deed was filed on the ground that the same was executed by some one by impersonating the plaintiff. Ayodhya Prasad was not a good law. 16. In the case of Ram Padarath (supra) also as suit for cancellation of sale-deed was filed on the ground that the same was executed by some one by impersonating the plaintiff. In that care it was held : "A suit or action for cancellation of a void document will generally lie in the Civil Court and a party cannot be deprived of his right getting his relief permissible under law except when a declaration of right or status of tenure holder is necessarily needed in which event relief for cancellation will surplusage and redundant." 17. The correctness of this case was tested by the Supreme Court in the case in Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad, AIR 1990 SC 540 . In that case the plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed on the ground that she intended to executed an instrument of agency. It was written in Hindi. This language was not known to her. Later on it was discovered that the agency in collusion with the officials of the registration department. The jurisdiction of the civil court was challenged. The trial court rejected the objection and held that the suit was cognisable by the Civil Court. In revision the High Court took a contrary view. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the plaintiff. The appeal was allowed holding that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held the present action would be covered by the pronouncement of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Pratap, (supra). Impliedly the law laid down by the Full Bench has been approved by the Supreme Court. 18. In another case reported in Smt. Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh, AIR 1990 SC 1173 while considering the distinction between void and voidable document the Supreme Court held that a suit for cancellation of a void document would be barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act. But in this case the scope of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Sub-clause (3) of Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the earlier decision of the Supreme Court impliedly approving the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Padarath (supra) have not been considered. 19. Facts of Smt. Dularia Devi's case (supra) were that the plaintiff was an illiterate woman. Sub-clause (3) of Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the earlier decision of the Supreme Court impliedly approving the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Padarath (supra) have not been considered. 19. Facts of Smt. Dularia Devi's case (supra) were that the plaintiff was an illiterate woman. She desired to execute a gift deed of her entire property in favour of her daughter. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 who had gained confidence of the plaintiff got a sale-deed executed in their favour. So the suit for cancellation of sale-deed was filed. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was challenged by the defendants. 20. The trial court after holding that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction decreed the suit. The decree was affirmed by the First appellate that the plaintiff was totally deceived as to the character of the document which she executed Therefore the document was void and was of no effect whatsoever. The suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Supreme Court upheld the view taken by the High Court and held - "It was a case of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document executed by her and no merely as to contents or as to its legal effect. The plaintiff never intended to sign what she did sign. Here mind did not accompany her thumb impression." Accordingly relying upon earlier decisions reported in Ningawwa v. Gyarappa Shiddappa Hireknrebar and others, AIR 1973 SC 2451 and Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain and other (supra) Supreme Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The case of Bismillah (supra) which was decided on 5-12-1989 was not brought to the appeal, of the Hon'ble judges hearing the appeal. The present appeal was decided on 2.3.1990. 21. In that case the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the scope of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which runs as follows : "49 Bar to Civil Jurisdiction. The present appeal was decided on 2.3.1990. 21. In that case the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the scope of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which runs as follows : "49 Bar to Civil Jurisdiction. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 4, or adjudication of any other rights arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provision of this Act add no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act : Provided that nothing in this section shall preclude the Assistant Collector from initiating proceedings under Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in respect of any land possession over which has been delivered or deemed to be delivered to a Goan Sabha under or in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 22. According to this provision after the notification under Section 4(2) had been issued, the proceedings which could or ought to have been initiated under the Act shall be done in accordance with the provisions of that Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect of any other matter for which the proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act. 23. The jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities is wider than that of the Civil or Revenue Court. Adjudication by them is final and cannot be challenged in the Civil or Revenue Court in view of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The decisions given by the consolidation authorities even in respect of void documents do not throw any light conclusively regarding jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue Court with reference to SEction 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Act. The decisions given by the consolidation authorities even in respect of void documents do not throw any light conclusively regarding jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue Court with reference to SEction 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Act. Provisions of SEction 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are entirely different than Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cannot be interpreted with reference to the language used in Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Settled principles of interpretation is that the provision of another Acts are not to be take as quite for interpreting the provisions another Act which are not in peri material with the former Act. Section 49 confines itself only to the ousting of the jurisdiction of the Civil and REvenue Court after the notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act. 24. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Dularia Devi (supra) is not applicable in the instant case. The scope of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform act has not been considered in that case whereas in the case of Bismillah (supra) the Supreme court had decided that question which squarely converse the controversy in the present case. 25. Though the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Dularia Devi is later in point of time than the case of Bismillah but I find no direct conflict between the two judgments on the question of jurisdiction to Civil and Revenue Courts. A Full Bench of this Court in the case reported in Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge and others, 1991 (17) ALR 380 has given a guideline to be followed in case of any conflict between the two judgments of the Supreme Court. It has followed the view taken by a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana in the case report in M/s. Indo Swiss Time Limited v. Umrao, AIR 1981 P & H 213 and another judgment of Bombay High Court in the case reported in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Municipal Corporation, AIR 1988 Bom. It has followed the view taken by a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana in the case report in M/s. Indo Swiss Time Limited v. Umrao, AIR 1981 P & H 213 and another judgment of Bombay High Court in the case reported in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Municipal Corporation, AIR 1988 Bom. 9 , and took the view that when the judgments of superior courts are of equal benches, their weight must be considered by the rational and the logic thereof and not only by time and the date on which they were pronounced. Two direct conflicting judgments of Supreme Court of equal authority will have to be considered with respect. Difficulties will be realised by the court in giving a choice. In that case the court should follow the judgment which lays down the law more elaborately and accurately. 26. After reading both the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Bismillah (supra) and Smt. Dularia Devi (supra) I am of the view that the law laid down in the case of Bismillah covers the controversy in the instant case and as such in binding on me. 27. Accordingly I am of the view that the judgments of the two courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity or any error apparent on the face of the record. 28. I find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.