Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. Heard Sri D.S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether Civil Court has got jurisdiction to hear and decide O. S. No. 71 of 2000 Smt. S. Kumari Devi v. Prakash Chandra Dixit and another. Original plaintiff Smt. S. Kumari has died and been substituted by her two sons who are respondents in this writ petition. Copy of the plaint is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Relief claimed in the plaint is for a declaration to the effect that alleged sale-deed dated 19.9.1984 executed by Champa Devi in favour of the defendants-petitioner is not binding upon the plaintiff and for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. Defendants petitioners filed written statement. Issues were framed. Issue No. 9 related to the question of jurisdiction i.e., as to whether suit was barred by section 331 of U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act. Trial Court/Additional Civil Judge ( J.D.), Court No. 1, Varanasi through order dated 5.9.2012 decided issue No. 9, as preliminary issue and in favour of the plaintiff holding the suit to be maintainable before the Civil Court. Against the said order petitioners filed Civil revision No. 220 of 2012 which was dismissed by A.D.J. Court No. 8, Varanasi on 25.2.2013, hence this writ petition, 3. The argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the suit is purely a suit for declaration hence maintainable before Revenue Court under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act. Learned Counsel has particularly invited the attention of the Court to para 6 of the plaint. The original plaintiff ( since deceased and survived by her sons/legal representative) pleaded in the plaint that late Champa Devi executed a gift deed in her favour on 29.8.1986 and since the said date she was is possession over the land in dispute which is agricultural land and on the basis of the gift deed her name was also mutated in the revenue record as Bhomidhar. Para 6 of the plaint was subsequently amended through order dated 15.10.2004 and it was pleaded that both the defendants are asserting that they have got right over the property in dispute on the basis of sale-deed dated 29.9.1984 alleged to have been executed by Champa Devi in their favour, however, the said sale-deed was not executed by Champa Devi but by some imposter posing as Champa Devi and no sale consideration was paid to Champa Devi also and defendants were not in possession and plaintiff came to know about the sale-deed afterwards. 4. The Trial Court through the order deciding the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff held that name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue record. 5. As far as position of entry of name in the revenue record is concerned, in para 3 of the writ petition it is mentioned that name of plaintiff was wrongly recorded by ex parte Order dated 1.9.1988 passed by the Tehsildar which was subsequently set aside on 10.5.1999 on the application of the petitioners, which order was also set aside but ultimately on 31.10.2001 order dated 1.9.1988 was finally set aside. 6. Even if the position of revenue entries is in a fluid state due to constant litigation before Revenue Court still suit for cancellation of sale-deed for declaration that it is void on the allegation that sale-deed was executed by imposter is maintainable before the Civil Court. The direct authority on this point is Full Bench authority of this Court in Ram Padarath v. A.D.J. 1989 ( 15) ALR 19 ( LB) ( FB). 7. In the Supreme Court authority of Sri Ram v. 1st A.D.J., AIR 2001 SC 1250 . Full Bench authority of this Court in Ram Padarath v. A.D.J. 1989 ( 15) ALR 19 ( LB) ( FB). was specifically approved and reference was also made to Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and others AIR 1990 SC 540 . The following observation of the Full Bench of this Court were quoted with the approval in Sri Ram "suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the Civil Court". 8. was specifically approved and reference was also made to Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad and others AIR 1990 SC 540 . The following observation of the Full Bench of this Court were quoted with the approval in Sri Ram "suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the Civil Court". 8. In Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshzvar Prasad and others, AIR 1990 SC 540 the facts were that plaintiff Smt. Bismillah asserted that she was given to understand that she was executing a document of agency in favour of Janeshwar Prasad but afterwards it transpired that he had fraudulently got a sale-deed executed by her. Supreme Court held that suit before Civil Court was maintainable. Last sentence of para 6 of the Supreme Court authority is quoted below : "In the instant case, prima facie appellant seems to proceed on the premise that she cannot ignore the sales but that the sales require to be set aside before she is entitled to possession and other consequential reliefs." Para 7 of the said authority is quoted below : "7. Even in cases where the transaction was assailed as, void, the High Court of Allahabad in India Dev v. Ram Pyari, 1982 ( 8) ALR 517 held the Civil Court's jurisdiction not barred. The facts in that case were that : .....plaintiff-appellants claimed a decree for cancellation of the sale-deed da.ted 10.7.1969 executed by Smt. Ram Pyari Devi, mother of appellant 1 Indra Dev, Minor, in favour of Bramha Nand respondent 1 in respect of certain agricultural plots. The cancellation was sought on the ground that Smt. Ram Pyari had no interest in the property in suit and, therefore, she was not entitled to execute the sale-deed..... In that case the learned District Judge had held that the allegations made in the plaint amounted to saying that the sale-deed was a void document. The Civil Court was held to have no jurisdiction. In that case the learned District Judge had held that the allegations made in the plaint amounted to saying that the sale-deed was a void document. The Civil Court was held to have no jurisdiction. The High Court, allowing the plaintiff's appeal and reversing the finding, of the District Judge, held : A survey of the above decisions shows that the consistent view of this Court is that the cause of action in a suit for cancellation of sale-deed is not the denial of plaintiff's title which may be said to be implicit in the execution of the sale-deed by the defendant but is the execution of the deed itself. ........Therefore, under the provisions of the Act itself, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be barred when declaration is sought against a person who has transferred agricultural property which the plaintiff claims to be his. Section 229-B does not contemplate all kinds of declaratory suits. It delays with declaratory suits. It deals with declaratory suit of the specified type hereinbefore mentioned........ This case has since been approved by a Full Bench of that Court in Ram Padarath v. Second Addl. Dist. Judge, Sultanpur, W.P. No. 1732 of 1982 decided on 26.9.1988 in 1989 AWC 290. The Full Bench held ( Para 41): We are of the view that the case of India Deo v. Smt. Ram Pyari, 1982 ( 8) ALR 517 has been correctly decided and the said decision requires no consideration, while the Division Bench case, Dr. Ayodhya Prasad v. Gangotri 1981 All LJ 647 is regarding the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities, but so far as it holds that suit in respect of void document will lie in the Revenue Court it does not lay down a good law. Suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the Civil Court and a party cannot be deprived of his right getting this relief permissible under law except when a declaration of right or status and a tenure-holder is necessarily needed in which event relief for cancellation will be surplus age and redundant. Suit or action for cancellation of void document will generally lie in the Civil Court and a party cannot be deprived of his right getting this relief permissible under law except when a declaration of right or status and a tenure-holder is necessarily needed in which event relief for cancellation will be surplus age and redundant. A recorded tenure-holder having prima facie title in his favour can hardly be directed to approach the Revenue Court in respect of seeking relief for cancellation of a void document which made him to approach the Court of law and in such case he can also claim ancillary relief even though the same can be granted by the Revenue Court. In any view of the matter, the present action would be covered by the pronouncement of the Full Bench. It is not necessary to go into the correctness of the view of the Full Bench as its correctness was not assailed before us." 9. Accordingly the suit is maintainable before Civil Court. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.