JUDGMENT Hon’ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.2006 whereby the defendants-appellants’ first appeal has been dismissed by the court below by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 3. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of sale-deed stating that the sale-deed dated 12.5.2000 was got executed by him by playing fraud on him by the defendants. He was taken into confidence by the respondents-defendants who told him that since a loan was being taken by him he may become a surety to it in which he will have no difficulty. On this pretext he was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar concerned where the document was already prepared from before on which he was asked to put his thumb impression. He being an illiterate person could not read the contents of the document and was made to put his thumb impressions thereon at the places indicated by the defendant and his associates. After some time he came to know from the villagers that the defendant was claiming that he has purchased the entire landed property of the plaintiff. Thereafter he went to the office of the Sub-Registrar and obtained the entire details of the fraud played upon him for getting the execution of impugned sale-deed. Soon afterwards the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed was filed. 4. The suit was contested by the appellants-defendants and their written statement was filed stating that the sale-deed in question was executed by the plaintiff with full conscious mind. No fraud was played upon him. He executed the sale-deed after receiving the due and sufficient consideration. The defendants are in possession over the disputed property and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff upon instigation of others. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed several issues and recorded its findings holding that the evidence and other materials available on record and the circumstances as reflected in the case made it evidently clear that the sale-deed in question was actually got executed by the plaintiff through practice of fraud and mis-representation. 5. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed several issues and recorded its findings holding that the evidence and other materials available on record and the circumstances as reflected in the case made it evidently clear that the sale-deed in question was actually got executed by the plaintiff through practice of fraud and mis-representation. He was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar on a false pretext stating that he would become a surety to certain loan being taken by the defendant and for that he is to append his thumb-impressions on certain documents. The Court further found that the circumstances under which the sale-deed was executed are self speaking about the commission of fraud. The property was extremely valuable and it has been purchased by the plaintiff at a paltry consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. The sale-deed itself stipulates its market price at Rs. 1,30,000/- whereas the consideration paid as compared to this is extremely low. Under these circumstances the trial Court found that the plaint allegations of commission of fraud and thus obtaining this sale-deed in question, was fully established and on that basis the suit was decreed and the sale-deed has been cancelled. In the first appeal, the lower appellate Court has agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court and found that the circumstances in the present case were obvious for indicating that the fraud was actually committed against the plaintiff for obtaining this sale-deed from him. The lower appellate court thus finding no merits in the appeal has dismissed it and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were affirmed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the courts below while considering the case of the respective parties have placed the burden upon the defendants to prove their case in the manner as if the plaintiff is having similar protection as that given to a Pardahnashin lady under the law. In this context he has cited the case law of Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, 2006 (2) ARC 516 (SC) and Shri Ram and another v. 1st Addl. In this context he has cited the case law of Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, 2006 (2) ARC 516 (SC) and Shri Ram and another v. 1st Addl. District Judge and others, 2001 (92) RD 241 (SC) On the strength of the aforesaid case law of Shri Ram (supra) it has been submitted that the suit itself was not maintainable before the Civil Court as the names of the defendants-appellants had already been mutated over the suit property and they have become owners thereof. The suit shall lie only for decision of title before the revenue authorities. It is further submitted that the lower appellate Court have not considered the revenue papers (Khasra Khatauni) which were filed at the appellate stage and has recorded otherwise finding ignoring that material evidence. 7. Whether or not the present suit for cancellation of the sale-deed would lie before the Civil Court is a question which has to be viewed in right prospective in the light of the pleadings presented by the parties before the Court. The statement given in the plaint is that the plaintiff was taken into confidence that the defendants would be obliged if he becomes a surety for the loan being taken by them for which he would have to append his thumb-impressions on certain papers. On this pretext he was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar where on certain papers prepared from before he was asked to put his thumb-impressions which he did without any objection. He could not read the document himself as he happened to be an illiterate. On these allegations if the relief of the plaint is judged it is found that the relief of cancellation has been sought on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation played upon the plaintiff. A suit for cancellation of such a document which has been obtained by practice of fraud and misrepresentation and which is not void but only voidable document, would definitely lie only before a Civil Court. Such relief for cancellation can be granted only by a regular Civil Court and not a void document no suit for declaration of title could be filed before the revenue authorities. Such relief for cancellation can be granted only by a regular Civil Court and not a void document no suit for declaration of title could be filed before the revenue authorities. Therefore, the mutation entries even if it were filed before the appellate Court and have not been considered, is not going to make much effect upon the merits of the case and the case law of Shri Ram (supra) would also not be applicable in the present facts. As regards burden of proof about which the aforesaid argument has been made, the perusal of the judgments of the two courts make it quite obvious that no burden has been shifted upon the defendants to prove that the sale-deed in question was got executed in free and fair circumstances without any pressure or by putting the plaintiff under compelling circumstances. No protection to the plaintiff has been accorded by the court as is given to a Pardahnashin lady. The bare and simple case of the plaintiff is that he was defrauded by taking him to the office of the Sub-Registrar for getting the sale-deed executed. That has been found proved by the courts below from the evidence made available on the record. Those findings are only factual findings and no interference against the same in a second appeal is legally possible. The aforesaid case law of Anil Rishi (supra) is also not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. In the aforesaid view of the matter I do not find that any substantial question of law is available in the present case for decision and the judgment of the courts below do not appear to have any error legal or whatsoever as to occasion an interference by this Court in the present appeal. The appeal is without substance and in the result it fails and is hereby dismissed. ———