Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Kokila Devi instituted O.S. No.343 of 2000 against Smt. Rama Gangwar, petitioner No.1, Ganga Devi since deceased and survived by petitioners No.2/1 to 2/5, Charan Singh and Netram, who are respondents No.2 & 3 in this writ petition. The suit is pending. The relief claimed in the suit was for cancellation of three sale deeds dated 01.10.1999 executed by the plaintiff in favour of Rama Gangwar, defendant petitioner No.1. In the plaint, it was stated that Shanker Lal was nephew of the plaintiff and she wanted to execute Will deed in favour of Shanker Lal and Shanker Lal's wife, however, after obtaining the khatauni, it transpired that her name had been expunged from the revenue record on the basis of sale deeds dated 01.10.1999 which she had never executed and she only signed/fixed her thumb impression on certain papers for some other purpose. The sale deeds pertained to agricultural land. After filing of the suit, plaintiff died. Shanker Lal respondent No.1 filed application for substitution stating therein that plaintiff had executed a Will in his favour. The application was allowed. In the suit issues were framed. Issues No.4, 5 and 9 were decided as preliminary issues by the trial court/First Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Pilibhit on 30.04.2011 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit was maintainable before civil court and it was not barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Against the said order, defendants filed Civil Revision No.25 of 2012, which was dismissed by A.D.J. Court No.1 Pilibhit on 18.10.2012, hence this writ petition. Defendants petitioners had contended that the suit as filed was not maintainable before Civil Court as it was basically a suit for declaration of rights in agricultural land. It was also contended that Shanker Lal, who had got himself substituted on the basis of Will had no right to continue to the suit in the civil court as the very basis of his substitution i.e. Will was denied by the defendants and that too required a declaration. It was also contended that after execution of the sale deed name of the defendant No.1 had been mutated in the revenue record hence suit even by original plaintiff was not maintainable. Shanker Lal stated that original plaintiff executed Will in his favour on 24.08.2000. It was also contended that after execution of the sale deed name of the defendant No.1 had been mutated in the revenue record hence suit even by original plaintiff was not maintainable. Shanker Lal stated that original plaintiff executed Will in his favour on 24.08.2000. In the plaint, plaintiff had described Shanker Lal as her nephew. The original plaintiff before her death had been examined as witness. In view of full Bench authority of this Court reported in Ram Padarath Vs. A.D.J., 1989 AWC 290 such suit is maintainable before the civil court. The said full Bench authority has been approved by the Supreme Court in Smt. Bismillah vs. Janeshwar Prasad and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 540 . The facts in the Supreme Court authority of Bismillah were that the plaintiff had stated that she had appointed defendants No.1 to 3 as her agents to manage the Estate through instrument of agency dated 17.04.1969, however later on it transpired that defendants respondents No.1 to 3 had got executed a sale deed instead of deed of agency. 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 All LJ 1308, 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 dated 10-7-1969 executed by Smt. Ram Pyari Devi, mother of appellant 1 Indra Dev, minor, in favour of Bramha Nand respondent I 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 229B does not contemplate all kinds of declaratory suits. It deals with declaratory suits of the specific 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 : reported 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 All LJ 1308 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 surplusage 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 surplusage 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." Accordingly, there is no error in the findings of the courts below holding the suit to be maintainable before the civil court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an authority of this court reported in Tara Chand Vs. A.D.J., 2010 (7) ADJ 384 . In the said authority, it has been held that if a suit is filed by a stranger for cancellation of sale deed of agricultural land then it may not be maintainable before the civil court. However, in the instant case, the suit was filed by the executant of the sale deed herself who was recorded tenure holder till the execution of the sale deed. After her death Shanker Lal was substituted at her place on the basis of Will. If during the life time of the executant of the sale deed, any other persons would have filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed or declaration of the same as void then it would not have been maintainable before civil court. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. _____________