Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant Writ Petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.92 contained in Annexure 3 to this writ petition, which has been passed by the Board of Revenue (Respondent No. 2) rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Revenue Authority dated 31.1.92 contained in Annexure-P. 2 to the petition passed on his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the suit pending before the said Authority. (2). The brief facts of the case, as revealed by the record, are that the petitioner-defendant and respondent No. 3-plaintiff are real brothers and respondent No. 4 Smt. Gurdev Kaur is their sister. Their father Ishar Singh was holding a Khatedari land in Chak No. 5-MLD (B), tehsil Ghadsana district Sri Ganganagar, who died on 12.11.87. The petitioner-defendant got the mutation of the whole land in his favour on the strength of a Will purported to have been executed by his father Ishar Singh. The respondent No. 3 (plaintiff) filed a suit before the Revenue Authority under Section 53 read with Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as ``the Tenancy Act), wherein the allegations have been made as under :– (i) after the death of their father, their sister Gurdeo Kaur has relinquished her share in favour of the said brothers; (ii) partition took place between the petitioner-defendant and res- pondent No. 3 (plaintiff) which was verified and signed by the Tehsildar and it was attested by the witnesses; (iii) the petitioner forged a Will on 21.5.88 in his favour and it has been shown to have been made on 15.3.87; (iv) the said Will is forged and fabricated document as it was not executed by their father. In March, 1987 when the alleged Will is purported to had been made, his father was with him in Punjab; (v) the Will was presented by the petitioner-defendant himself; (vi) had the Will been a genuine document, it could have been disclosed on 30.11.87 when the partition took place before the Tehsildar; and (vii) no notice was given to the respondent No. 3 plaintiff at the time of mutation proceedings. The Prayer Clause reads as under :– (a) declaration be made that the plaintiff was entitled for 1/3 share in the land in dispute and after getting it partitioned, he was entitled to possession over 1/3 share; (b) he be put in possession of the said 1/3 share and mutation be made in his favour; (c) award him the costs; and (d) grant any other relief, to which the plaintiff was entitled. (3). During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant filed an appli- cation before the competent Revenue Authority that the suit may be dismissed as it did not disclose any cause of action and the order to be passed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. Moreover, the suit was not maintainable before the Revenue Authority and such a declaration can be made only by the Civil Court. Thus, the plaintiff be relegated to the Civil Court for the said relief. The competent Authority rejected the said application vide order dated 31.1.92 (Annexure P. 2). The Revenue Authority has clearly mentioned that the plaintiff had not sought a declaration of cancellation of the Will, rather it was a case of ignoring the Will being forged and fabricated document. Thus, the Revenue Authority was competent to proceed with the matter. (4). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner-defendant filed a revision before the Board of Revenue-respondent No. 2 - under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Tenancy Act, which has been rejected by the judgment and order dated 29.12.92 (Annexure. P. 3). Hence this writ petition. (5). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. (6). Mr. H.S. Sidhu-learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ultimate relief sought by the respondent No. 3-plaintiff is to get a declaration that the Will in question is a forged document and, therefore, the matter can be decided only by a civil court and if such a declaration is made, only then the revenue court will have the jurisdiction to decide the issue in question. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the respondent No. 3-plaintiff is seeking only partition ignoring the Will being a forged and fabricated document, it is triable only by a revenue court as after recording the evidence if the Revenue Authority comes to the conclusion that it is a forged document, the Authorities have to ignore it and it is not necessary to declare the same as a forged and fabricated document. Moreover, in case the Revenue Authority comes to the conclusion that the proprietary rights in respect of the land in dispute are involved and such questions have not been previously determined by the civil court of competent jurisdiction, the Revenue Court itself can refer the matter to the civil court for adjudication on such issues as is required under Section 239 of the Tenancy Act. (7). The issue involved in this case has been considered from time and again before the courts and basically the issue is to be decided after considering: whether the documents, the sanctity of which is under challenge, provides for a void or voidable transaction ? The transaction may be void if not enforceable at law as being destitute to legal effect. It has no legal existence and, thus, ceases to be enforcable by law, as defined under Section 2(g) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 and such transactions are dealt with under the provisions of Sections 20, 23, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Contract Act. A transaction or document may be voidable but it remains enforcible at law at the option of one or more party thereto, but not at the option of any other stranger. It may include where an agreement is arrived at by coercion, undue influence, by playing fraud or mis- representation and in such a case it is for the party seeking to avoid it to set-up the defence and if it is not done, the agreement would be a binding contract. A document may be unenforceable for procedural reasons, i.e., for deficiency of stamps, for want of registration or not being executed within the limitation; but in all such cases it does not become void, it may be merely voidable. A document may be unenforceable for procedural reasons, i.e., for deficiency of stamps, for want of registration or not being executed within the limitation; but in all such cases it does not become void, it may be merely voidable. Where an agreement in substance owing to flaws in the contract or incapacity of the parties or want of free consent etc., such agreements are valid unless they are impeached by the said party. (Vide : Shri Shibha Prasad Singh vs. Maharaja Harish Chandra (1); Kaliyanpur Lime Mills Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2); and Dhyanlaxmi Rice Mills vs. Commissioner of Civil Supplies & Anr. (3). (8). In: Immani Apparao vs. G. Ramalingmurthy (4), the Honble Supreme Court has observed that while considering a case where a plea of fraud has been raised, the Court must be conditioned solely by consideration of Public Policy. (9). In: Ammathyee Lal Perumalkkal & Anr. vs. Kumaresan alias Balakrishnan & Ors. (5), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the power of gift is much more circumscribed in case of ancestral property. A Hindu father or any other Managing Member has power to make a gift of ancestral immovable property within reasonable limits for pious purposes. In such a case where the gift is challenged on the ground of capacity to alienate by gift, it was found that it was beyond the capacity of the father-in-law to make a gift of such a share of immovable property in favour of the daughter-in-law specially when the father-in-law himself could not make such a gift and, therefore, the transaction was found to be invalid. (10). Any agreement which is opposed to Personal Law of the parties or oppo- sed to public policy, is void. (Vide : C.N. Arunachalam Mudeliyar vs. C.A. Muruganltha Mudaliyar & Anr. (6); and S.R. Nayak & Anr. vs. Union of India (7). (11). In: Yamuna Bai Anant Rao Adhav vs. Ananta Rao Shivram Adhav & Anr. (8), the term of ``void was explained by the Honble Supreme Court in reference to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and it was held that a marriage, which is void under Section 11, can be held to be so without a formal declaration by a Court in a proceeding for the reason that the marriage can be treated as null and void from its very inception. In that case, the marriage was nullity as it was found to be in contravention of the provisions and conditions specified in Clause (1)(iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. (12). Any agreement providing for wagering is void as it is hit by public policy and would be hit by the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act. In: Firm of Pratap Chandra Nopaji vs. Firm of Kotrike Venketa Setty & Sons (9), the Supreme Court has held as under :– ``If an agreement is merely colateral to another or constitutes an aid facilitating the carrying out of the object of other agreement, which, though void, is not in itself prohibited within the meaning of Section 23 of the Contract Act, it may be enforced as a colateral agreement. If, on the other hand, it is part of a mechanism meant to defeat what the law has actually prohibited, the courts will not countenance a claim based upon the agreement because it will be tainted with an illegality of the object sought to be achieved which is hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act. It is well established that the object of an agreement cannot be said to be forbidden or unlawful merely because the agreement results in what is known as a ``void contract. A void agreement, when coupled with other facts, may become part of a transaction which creates legal rights, but this is not so if the object is prohibited by ``male in se. (13). In: Raghubachmani Prasad Narain Singh vs. Ambica Prasad Singh (10), the Honble Supreme Court held that in any event a alienation by the Manager of the Joint Hindu Family even without legal necessity, is voidable and not void. (14). In: Nawab Khan Abbas Khan vs. State of Gujarat (11), the Honble Supreme Court has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the House of Lords in: Ridge vs. Baldwin (12), wherein it has been observed as under :- ``Voidable acts are those which can be invalidated in certain proceedings; these proceedings are specially formulated for the purpose of directly challenging such act........On the other hand, when an act is not merely voidable but void, it is a nullity and can be discarded and impeached in any proceeding, before any court or Tribunal and when- ever it is relied-upon. In other words, it is subject to the colateral attack......When a Court holds an act a nullity, is that it is not a declaration of nullity; it is a true annulment, an annulment with retroactive force. (15). Similar view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in: G. Anna- malai Pillai vs. District Revenue Officer & Ors. (13), wherein the Honble Supreme Court placed reliance upon a catena of judgments and held that a void agreement must fail to receive legal recognition or sanction for the reason that the agreement was wholly destitute of legal efficacy. A voidable agreement stands on a different footing as it is not a nullity but its operation is conditional and not absolute. (16). The same view has been expressed by the Honble Apex Court in: State of Kerla vs. M.K. Kunhikannan & Ors. (14), wherein the Supreme Court has held that there are no degrees in nullity. (17). The issue of applicability of this Rule 7 Order 11 C.P.C. was considered by the Honble Supreme Court in: T. Arvind Quandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. (15) and it was observed that the Court must give a meaningful reading to the plaint and if it is manifestly vaxious or meritless and in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court may exercise its power under Order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. However, the Court has to take care that the grounds mentioned therein must be fulfilled and while doing so, the Court does not have to decide the legal issues. However, in a case where the validity of a particular document itself is under challenge, the same cannot be considered and decided. The application under Order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. cannot be allowed. (Vide: Bhagwan Das vs. Goswami Brijesh Kumarji & Ors. (16). (18). In: Gurucharan Singh & Ors. vs. Mst. Gurudayal Kaur & Ors. (17), the Court held that while considering the issue of jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Sec- tion 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the substance of the plaint and true nature and object of the suit that has to be seen for deciding the said case. vs. Mst. Gurudayal Kaur & Ors. (17), the Court held that while considering the issue of jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Sec- tion 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the substance of the plaint and true nature and object of the suit that has to be seen for deciding the said case. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Badri Lal vs. Moda (18), was relied upon and it was held therein that for the purpose of seeing whether the suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the same, the aver- ments in the plaint are carefully to be looked into and all the allegations made in the plaint should be taken into consideration and not the relief alone claimed in the plaint, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction ``as the substance of the plaint provides a good guide to find-out the true nature of the object of the suit. While deciding the case, reliance was, also, placed on a Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in: Ram Avalamb vs. Jata Shanker (19), wherein it has been held that while deciding the issue: whether the suit is soley cognizable by the Revenue Court or is impliedly cognizable by a Civil Court, the cause of action of the suit has to be strictly scrutinized and where on a definite cause of action two or more reliefs can be claimed, which of the relief is the main relief and which relief or other reliefs is/are ancillary reliefs. Once the suit is maintainable for the main relief in the Civil Court then there is no bar for the Civil Court to grant all possible reliefs flowing from the same cause of action, and which is the main relief sought by the plaintiff, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (19). In: Dwarka Singh vs. The District Judge & Ors. (20), it was held that where the suit for declaration that the sale-deed of agricultural land was non est and no other relief was sought for, then the Civil Court, and not the Revenue Court, would have the jurisdiction to try the suit. (19). In: Dwarka Singh vs. The District Judge & Ors. (20), it was held that where the suit for declaration that the sale-deed of agricultural land was non est and no other relief was sought for, then the Civil Court, and not the Revenue Court, would have the jurisdiction to try the suit. While deciding the said case issue, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in: Nigawwa vs. Biaruppa Shiddappa Chirekmbrar (21), wherein it was held that a contract induced by fraud is not void but only voidable at the option of the party defrauded and unless it is avoided, the transaction remains valid. (20). In: Smt. Dulari Devi vs. Jannardan Singh (2) the thumb impression of the executant - an illiterate woman - had been obtained on the sale deed by making her the belief that she was executing the gift deed in favour of her daughter. The Apex Court held that ``her mind never accompanied her thumb impression. It was a case of mis-representation to the character of the document and not to its contents and thus the deed was found to be void and not voidable and, thus, the Civil suit was not maintainable and the suit could be tried by the statutory authority. Moreover, it is, also, settled law that it is for the party, who seeks to ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, to establish his contention. In: Abdul Wahid Khan vs. Bhawani (23), the Apex Court has held that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of a civil court must be strictly construed. In fact, it is the pith and substance of the plaint which is to be seen to determine : whether the suit is maintainable in a Civil Court or before other Competent Authority, as the language might be used in such a way that it may oust the jurisdiction of a particular Court. The form of action in relation to void document or instrument regarding agricultural land depends on the real cause of action with reference to the facts averred. (21). In: Smt. Bismilla vs. Janeshwar Prasad (24), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under :– ``It is true that the question of jurisdiction depends upon the allegations in the plaint and not the merits or the result of the suit. (21). In: Smt. Bismilla vs. Janeshwar Prasad (24), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under :– ``It is true that the question of jurisdiction depends upon the allegations in the plaint and not the merits or the result of the suit. However, in order to determine the premise, the nature of action, the pleadings should be taken as a whole.......The real point is not the stray or loose explanation which abound in inartistically drafted plaint but the real substance of the case is gathered by construing the pleadings as a whole. (22). Mr. Sidhu has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Board of Revenue in: Jasveer Kaur vs. Sukhdeo (25), wherein it has been held that a suit for partition and declaration under Sections 53 and 88 of the Act can be heard and de- cided by a Revenue Court. It is, however, necessary that a voidable document should first be set-aside by a Civil Court and then only relief should be claimed from the Revenue Court. In that case, the controversy was that the document, on which reliance was placed, had not been registered at the proper place as required under Section 28 of the Registration Act. The said judgment is of no help to the petitioner because the Board of Revenue itself proceeded with the presumption that it was a voidable document. In the instant case, it is alleged to be a void document. (23). He has further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in: Amir Mohammed vs. Gafoor Mohammed Khan (26), wherein the Court has observed that the relief of cancellation of the sale-deed cannot be granted by a Revenue Court and the suit was maintainable only before the Civil Court. In the present case, the petitioner is not claiming cancellation of the Will and his case has been that it is a void being a forged and fabricated document and, thus, the cases referred to by Mr. Sidhu are distinguishable. (24). It should, also, be made clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not concurrent with that of the Revenue Court in a matter of this nature and the facts and circumstances of each case have to be considered of its own. (25). Sidhu are distinguishable. (24). It should, also, be made clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not concurrent with that of the Revenue Court in a matter of this nature and the facts and circumstances of each case have to be considered of its own. (25). If in the light of the above, the instance case is examined, it is abundantly clear that if the facts stated, the grounds and allegations and the averments made therein are taken into consideration in totality, it is abundantly clear in sum and substance that the respondent No. 3 plaintiff has made a grievance that the Will, on the basis of which the present petitioner-defendant has got the mutation, is void being a forged and fabricated document as it had never been executed by their father Ishar Singh. If the Revenue Court comes to the conclusion that it was never executed by late (Shri) Ishwar Singh, it is not necessary for the Revenue Court to declare it a nullity as it can be simply ignored and in that situation, by ignoring the said Will, the other reliefs claimed by the respondent No. 3 plaintiff can be granted by the Revenue Court as according to the averments in the plaint, neither the body nor mind of Shri Ishar Singh accompanied the alleged Will and the said instrument, being non est, is just to be ignored. Moreover, this petition has arisen only against an order passed on the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 rule 11 C.P.C. and it is settled law that such an application cannot be entertained and allowed where the validity of a particular document is under challenge. (26). Thus, I find no force in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dis- missed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.