Sudhir Agarwal, J.;— 1. The preliminary objection raised by defendant that suit in question is not maintainable in Civil Court having been rejected by Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 09.09.1997 and petitioners' revision rejected by Revisional Court vide judgment dated 31.10.1998, has given rise to this petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing of both the aforesaid orders. 2. It appears that Original Suit No. 186 of 1995 was filed by plaintiffs-respondents for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.12.1992 on the ground of fraud and consequential relief for giving possession of land in question to plaintiffs. 3. The petitioners-defendants raised an objection that since plaintiffs are not recorded tenure holder in revenue records, therefore, original suit is not maintainable in Civil Court and is entertainable by Revenue Court. The Trial Court considered aforesaid preliminary objection and rejected the same vide order dated 09.09.1997, whereagainst petitioners' Civil Revision No. 86 of 1997 has also been rejected by District Judge, Sitapur vide order dated 31.10.1998. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, since plaintiffs-respondents were not recorded in revenue records as tenure holder, therefore, suit before Civil Court was not maintainable and barred by Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1951"). Reliance is placed on a decision of Apex Court in Kamla Prasad and others Vs. Kishna Kant Pathak and others, 2007(4) SCC 213 . 5. Suit for declaration which are entertainable by Revenue Courts under Section 229-B of Act, 1951, are as under: "229-B. Declaratory suit by person claiming to be an asami of a holding or part thereof.- (1) Any person claiming to be an asami of a holding or any part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person may sue the land holder for a declaration of his rights as asami in such holding or part as the case may be. (2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as asami under the landholder shall be impleaded as defendant. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) land (2) shall mutates mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a Bhumidhar with the amendment that for the word "landholder" the words "the State Government and the Gaon Sabha" are substituted therein." 6. Section 331 of 1950 Act talks of the cognizance of suit etc. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) land (2) shall mutates mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a Bhumidhar with the amendment that for the word "landholder" the words "the State Government and the Gaon Sabha" are substituted therein." 6. Section 331 of 1950 Act talks of the cognizance of suit etc. under 1950 Act and reads as under: "331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act.--(1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof or of a suit, application, or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application : Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suits, applications or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof. Explanation.--If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), an objection that a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II, or as the case may be, a civil court, which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or proceeding, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice." 7. Section 331(1) ex facie provides that "no Court other than a court mentioned in Column 4 Schedule II shall take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in Column 3 thereof, notwithstanding anything contained in Civil Procedure Code or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief can be obtained by means of any suit or such application in such Court. Therefore, first of all, we have to refer to Column 3, Schedule II to find out, what kinds of suits, applications or proceedings can be filed therein in the Court mentioned in Column-IV which are in fact all Revenue Courts. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since suit can be filed under Section 229-B of 1950 Act, therefore, refers to item 34 of which Column-1 to 4 reads as under: 34 229, 229-B, 229-C Suit for declaration of rights Assistant Collector Ist Class 9. Now, a suit for declaration of rights under 1950 Act, if filed, the same would lie before the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Class. This Court has to examine whether the suit in question can be said to be of such kind or not. In order to find out whether Civil Court jurisdiction is barred or not, the Court cannot resolve the dispute merely by perusing the relief claimed in the plaint but would have to consider the nature of allegations constituting cause of action as also other attending circumstances to find out the true and real nature of relief. 10. The principal and in fact the only relief sought in the suit filed before Civil Court is for cancellation of alleged sale deed dated 14.12.1992 with respect to the property in question. No relief has been sought with respect to the rights and title of a tenure holder or declaration of title or status. 11. A Full Bench of this Court in Ram Padarath & Ors. Vs. No relief has been sought with respect to the rights and title of a tenure holder or declaration of title or status. 11. A Full Bench of this Court in Ram Padarath & Ors. Vs. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur, 1989 RD 21 has said: "These cases in substance lay down that suit for cancellation of void deed is cognizable by civil court and Section 331 does not deprive a party from a right to approach competent court of law for getting a document cancelled and instead drives a party to revenue court claiming a different relief and that of cancellation which a revenue court cannot grant holding the deed to be void." 12. In para 42 of the judgment in Ram Padarath (supra) the Full Bench further said: "42. Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act excludes the jurisdiction of civil court in respect of those matters for which relief can be had from the revenue court by means of a suit, application or proceedings mentioned in Schedule II to the 'Act'. Section 331 of the Act, if read without Explanation, does not create any difficulty. Dispute regarding jurisdiction arises when Explanation, which is an integral part of the section, is interpreted and applied to the facts of a particular case. The object of Explanation to any statutory provision is to understand the Act in the light of the Explanation which ordinarily does not enlarge scope of the original section which it explains, but only makes its meaning clear beyond dispute. The Explanation thus makes the things still more explicit and exists primarily removing doubts and dispute winch may crop up in its absence. Section 331 of the 'Act' alone with Explanation cannot be read so as to oust the jurisdiction of civil court if the primary relief on the same cause of action can be granted by the civil court notwithstanding the fact the consequential relief or ancillary relief flowing out of the main relief, the grant of which also becomes necessary, can be granted by revenue court alone." 13. In the present case the Original Suit No. 186 of 1995 was filed by respondent no. 3 and the husband of respondent no. In the present case the Original Suit No. 186 of 1995 was filed by respondent no. 3 and the husband of respondent no. 4 vide plaint dated 30.08.1995 stating that land in dispute belong to plaintiff's father Sri Kunj Behari Lal who was Bhumidhar with transferable rights of plot No. 119, area 0.821 hectare and after the death of Sri Kunj Behari Lal, plaintiffs are the owner of aforesaid land and in possession thereof. During consolidation proceedings, Ram Swaroop son of Ram Dayal and Ramawati claimed to be co-tenure holder of land in dispute which was not accepted by consolidation authorities, whereagainst Ram Swaroop and another filed appal before Settlement Officer which was allowed vide order dated 30.01.1974 and name of Ram Swaroop etc. was entered into the revenue records as co-tenure holder. 14. However against Settlement Officer's order a revision was filed by plaintiff's father before Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 14.09.1976 and the order of Settlement Officer dated 30.01.1974 was cancelled. The said order of Deputy Director of Consolidation attained finality after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 3461 of 1976 vide order dated 09.11.1994. 15. The plaintiff's father thus got exclusive possession over disputed property and after his death it is in possession of plaintiffs. 16. However, Ram Swaroop son of Ram Dayal during pendency of aforesaid writ petition, executed a sale deed in favour of defendants-petitioners on 14.12.1992. This sale deed patently illegal and unauthorised. Since plaintiffs apprehended complication from defendants, suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed. 17. It is in these circumstances the sale deed dated 14.12.1992 which was registered by Sub-Registrar, Biswan on 15.03.1993 was sought to be declared illegal and cancelled. 18. The defendants claimed that in revenue records since name of Ram Swaroop son of Ram Dayal was recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights, they purchased land in dispute vide sale deed dated 14.12.1992 executed by Ram Swaroop and they are now in possession thereof. 19. With respect to consolidation proceedings the defendants-petitioners claim lack of knowledge whatsoever. 20. This Court would have to examine whether the above suit in question was maintainable before Civil Court or barred by Section 331 of Act, 1951. 21. 19. With respect to consolidation proceedings the defendants-petitioners claim lack of knowledge whatsoever. 20. This Court would have to examine whether the above suit in question was maintainable before Civil Court or barred by Section 331 of Act, 1951. 21. In view of judgment of this Court dated 09.11.1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 3461 of 1976, it is evident that plaintiffs-respondents' father's title over property in dispute was exclusive and Ram Swaroop had no share or interest thereon. The mere fact that during pendency of writ petition, property in dispute was purchased by petitioners from Ram Swaroop would not confer any semblance of valid right or title upon them. 22. In my view the law laid down by Apex Court Shri Ram and another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge and others, 2001(3) SCC 24 will apply to this case. The plaintiffs did not require any declaration for their title since it was already decided upto this Court. The suit was filed only for the purpose of cancellation of sale deed executed by a stranger in favour of defendants-petitioners. The fact situation as obtained in Shri Ram and another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge (supra) to some extent is similar to the present case. There, one Smt. Vidyawati Devi owner and Bhumidhar of land in dispute executed a registered sale deed on 12.07.1984 in favour of Shri Ram and another and transferred the said plot to them. Possession was also delivered to vendees and mutation in revenue records also took place. Subsequently, defendants no. 3 and 4 allegedly forged an agreement for sale of said plot in their favour and projecting some imposter as Smt. Vidyawati Devi got a sale deed dated 24.07.1985 executed in their favour for alleged consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and on the strength of said sale deed attempted to interfere with the possession of Shri Ram and another over disputed land. It is in these circumstances, a suit for injunction was filed by Shri Ram and another. It is also clear that Smt. Vidyawati Devi also filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.07.1984. The argument was advanced about maintainability of suit by virtue of Section 331 of Act, 1951 contending that if document is void, there is nothing to cancel or set aside and it has simply to be ignored. It is also clear that Smt. Vidyawati Devi also filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.07.1984. The argument was advanced about maintainability of suit by virtue of Section 331 of Act, 1951 contending that if document is void, there is nothing to cancel or set aside and it has simply to be ignored. If the document is voidable the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide suit and it is only the Revenue Court, which has jurisdiction to decide such a suit for declaration. The suit of Smt. Vidyawati Devi also was not maintainable and barred by Section 331. The reliance was placed on an earlier decision of Apex Court in Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain Singh and others (1973) 2 SCC 535 . The Court however considered the above submission and while rejecting aforesaid objection and holding the suit maintainable, observed that vendor Smt. Vidyawati Devi has admitted execution of registered sale deed on 12.07.1984 in favour of Shri Ram and another. Delivery of possession of land to them was also admitted by her. It was also not in dispute that names of Shri Ram and another was ordered to be recorded as tenure holder in revenue records. The Court then formulated a question, whether a recorded tenure holder having prima facie title in his favour and in possession, is required to file a suit in Revenue Court or Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain or decide the suit document. The Court in its endeavour to answer this question referred to Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Padarath (supra) and also noticed that aforesaid decision was approved in Smt. Bismillah vs. Janeshwar Prasad and others (1990) 1 SCC 207 . The Court quoted following extract of Full Bench decision which clinches the issue up for consideration: "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 surpluses 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." 23. The Court also distinguished the decision in Gorakh Nath Dube (supra) and observed that the relied on passage must be understood in the context of facts of that case. The Court found that there was no prima facie title in favour of plaintiff and his title to land and delivery of possession was required to be adjudicated. Having said so the Court said: ". . . . . we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession." 24. So far the decision relied by counsel for petitioners in Kamla Prasad and others Vs. Kishna Kant Pathak (supra) is concerned, I find that there the admitted facts are that defendants had share in property in dispute as is evident from paras 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the judgment. The Court found that plaintiff's own case was that he and defendants no. 10 to 12 were co-Bhumidhars of disputed land and as such the defendants had also right in disputed property. The Court found that plaintiff's own case was that he and defendants no. 10 to 12 were co-Bhumidhars of disputed land and as such the defendants had also right in disputed property. The execution of sale deed by defendants and plaintiff was also not in dispute but what he claimed is that at the time of execution he was under intoxication and the documents got executed by contesting defendants without there being any free will on the part of plaintiff. It is in these facts and circumstances the Court held that question as to how much share belong to plaintiff and defendants respectively is a question which can be determined only by Revenue Court and further that after sale deed, name of plaintiff was deleted from revenue records and the names of contesting defendants were entered in his place. The question of possession of agricultural land was also to be decided by Revenue Court since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to give any finding of possession over agricultural land. 25. The Court, however, proceeded to hold in para 12, 13 and 16 as under: "12. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, in our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be accepted. So far as abadi land is concerned, the trial Court held that Civil Court had jurisdiction and the said decision has become final. But as far as agricultural land is concerned, in our opinion, the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court were right in coming to the conclusion that only Revenue Court could have entertained the suit on two grounds. Firstly, the case of the plaintiff himself in the plaint was that he was not the sole owner of the property and defendant 10 to 12 who were proforma defendants, had also right, title and interest therein. He had also stated in the plaint that though in the Revenue Record, only his name had appeared but defendant 10 to 12 have also right in the property. In our opinion, both the Courts below were right in holding that such a question can be decided by a Revenue Court in a suit instituted under Section 229-B of the Act. 13. In our opinion, both the Courts below were right in holding that such a question can be decided by a Revenue Court in a suit instituted under Section 229-B of the Act. 13. On second question also, in our view, Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that legality or otherwise of insertion of names of purchasers in Record of Rights and deletion of name of the plaintiff from such record can only be decided by Revenue Court since the names of the purchasers had already been entered into. Only Revenue Court can record a finding whether such an action was in accordance with law or not and it cannot be decided by a Civil Court. 16. The instant case is covered by the above observations. The lower Appellate Court has expressly stated that the name of the plaintiff had been deleted from Record of Rights and the names of purchasers had been entered. The said fact had been brought on record by the contesting defendants and it was stated that the plaintiff himself appeared as a witness before the Mutation Court, admitted execution of the sale deed, receipt of sale consideration and the factum of putting vendees into possession of the property purchased by them. It was also stated that the records revealed that the names of contesting defendants had been mutated into record-of-rights and the name of plaintiff was deleted." 26. A bare perusal of aforesaid decision makes it clearly distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts of present case. The decision of Settlement Officer on the basis whereof entry in revenue record was made in favour of Ram Swaroop stood nullified after setting aside the order of Settlement Officer by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision and affirmance of revisional order by this Court. The title of plaintiffs-respondents, therefore, being absolutely clear, here is not a case where plaintiffs had to seek declaration regarding their status and title. It is only a case of cancellation of a sale deed which is patently bogus, illegal and based on a document which has been nullified in further proceedings by superior courts. Therefore, in this particular case, I do not find that jurisdiction of Civil Court can be held to be ousted vide Section 331 of Act, 1951. 27. The decisions of courts below impugned in this writ petition, therefore, cannot be faulted either in law or otherwise. 28. Therefore, in this particular case, I do not find that jurisdiction of Civil Court can be held to be ousted vide Section 331 of Act, 1951. 27. The decisions of courts below impugned in this writ petition, therefore, cannot be faulted either in law or otherwise. 28. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. _____________