ivil Appeal No 2998 of 1980
From the Judgment and Order dated 17111980 of the Aliahabad High Court in SA No 2954 of 1979
MS Gujral and Mohan Pandey for the Appellant
Satish Chandra Praveen Swarup and Pramod Swarup for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 801 THOMMEN J
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No 2954 of 1979 whereby the learned Judges of the High Court allowing the defendants  appeal set aside the decrees of the courts below
The High Court held that the suit was barred by reason of Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Hold ings Act 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff
The plaintiff is an illiterate person
Her daughter Rameshwari Devi is the wife of the 6th defendant Yogendra Prasad Singh
Arjun Singh and Janardan Singh defendant Nos 3 and 4 are the brothers of the 6th defendant
Defendants Nos 3 and 4 had gained the confidence of the plaintiff and she confided in them her desire to make a gift of her entire properties in favour of her daughter
Defendant Nos 3 and 4 readily agreed to make arangements to execute and register the necessary deed
On 1891971 these defendants took the plaintiff to the Office of the Sub Registrar
The plaintiff paid the amount needed for expenses
The defendants pur chased stamp papers in the name of the plaintiff
On two deeds which had been prepared at the instance of the de fendants the plaintiff was made to put her thumb impres sions
Being an illiterate person she could not read the contents of the documents or understand their character
She had been told and she honestly believed that she was executing a gift deed in favour of her daughter as desired by her in respect of her properties
She had in fact exe cuted two deeds one of which was a gift in favour of her daughter and the other a sale deed in favour of all the defendants
The consideration for the sale shown in the document was Rs 14000
This was a clear case of fraud practised upon her by the defendants
The defendants and the Sub Registrar as well as the document writer had all con spired together to perpetrate the fraud
The plaintiff did not know that she had executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants in respect of her property until 25th June 1974 when she found defendant Nos 3 and 4 interfering with her possession of the property
They told her that she had executed a sale deed in their favour
It was only on 2nd July 1974 that she came to know of the full facts
Accord ingly she filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed
The suit was decreed by the trial court and that decree was confirmed in appeal by the first appellate court
Setting aside the decree in the defendant s second appeal the High Court held that the plaintiff was totally deceived as to the character of the document which she executed and the docu ment was therefore void and of no effect whatsoever
Accordingly the suit was barred under section 49 of the Act under which consolidation proceedings had been pending at the time of the 802 institution of the suit in respect of the property in ques tion
The facts are not in dispute
It is not disputed that the documents in question came to be executed in the manner alleged by the plaintiff
The appellant however contends that since it was a case of the document having been vitiat ed by fraud the transaction was viodable but not void and therefore the suit to set aside the sale was rightly instituted by her and the bar of section 49 was not attract ed
The appellant contends that the suit is perfectly main tainable and the High Court was wrong in holding to the contrary
Mr Satish Chandra appearing for the respondents rightly in our view submits that two principles enunciated by this Court in Gorakh Nath Dube vs Hari Narain Singh  Ors  and Ningawwa vs Byrappa  3 Ors  squarely apply to the facts of this case and the document in question evidenced a void transaction and not a mere voidable transaction and no suit was there fore maintainable in view of the bar contained in section 49 of the Act
In Gorakh Nath Dube supra this Court held that the object of the relevant provision of the Act was to remove from the jurisdiction of any civil court or revenue court all disputes which could be decided by the competent author ity under the Act during the consolidation proceedings
Questions relating to the validity of a sale deed or a gift deed and the like had to be examined in proceedings before the statutory authorities
The Court however drew a dis tinction between void and voidable documents and said a voidable document was one which remained in force until set aside and such a document could be set aside only by a competent civil court and a suit for that purpose would therefore be maintainable
On the other hand a claim that a transaction was void was a matter which could be adjudi cated upon by the consolidation courts
This is what this Court stated We think that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any court or authority and one where it has to be actually set aside before it can cease to have legal effect
An alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be to the extent of the excess of power invalid
An adjudication on the effect of such a purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to rights or interests in 803 land which are the subject matter of consolidation proceed ings
The existence and quantum of rights claimed or denied will have to be declared by the consolidation authorities which would be deemed to be invested with jurisdiction by the necessary implication of their statutory powers to adjudicate upon such rights and interests in land to de clare such documents effective or ineffective but where there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by setting it aside or its cancellation it could be urged that the consolidation authorities have no power to cancel the deed and therefore it must be held to be binding on them so long as it is not cancelled by a court having the power to cancel it
In the case before us the plaintiffs claim is that the sale of his half share by his uncle was invalid inoperative and void
Such a claim could be adjudicated upon by consolidation courts emphasis supplied In Ningawwa vs Byrappa  3 Ors supra this Court referred to the well established principle that a contract or other transaction induced or tendered by fraud is not void but only voidable at the option of the party defraud ed
The transaction remains valid until it was avoided
This Court then said The legal position will be different if there is a fraudu lent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of the document but as to its character
The authorities make a clear distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and fraudulent misrepresenta tion as to the contents thereof
With reference to the form er it has been held that the transaction is void while in the case of the latter it is merely voidable
In Foster vs Mackinon  the action was by the endorsee of a bill of exchange
The defendant pleaded that he endorsed the bill on a fraudulent representation by the acceptor that he was signing a guarantee
In holding that such a plea was admissible the Court observed It signature is invalid not merely on the ground of fraud where fraud exists but on the ground that the mind of the signer did not accompany the signature in other words that he never intended to sign and therefore in contemplation of law never did sign the 804 contract to which his name is appended  
The defendant never intended to sign that contract or any such contract
He never intended to put his name to any instrument that then was or thereafter might become negotiable
He was deceived not merely as to the legal effect but as to the actual contents  of the instrument emphasis supplied From the facts narrated above about which as stated earlier there is no dispute it is clear that this is a case where the plaintiffappellant was totally ignorant of the mischief played upon her
She honestly believed that the instrument which she executed and got registered was a gift deed in favour of her daughter
She believed that the thumb impressions taken from her were in respect of that single document
She did not know that she executed two documents one of which alone was the gift deed but the other Was a sale of the property in favour of all the defendants
This was therefore a case of fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document executed by her and not merely as to its contents or as to its legal effect
The plaintiff appellant never intended to sign what she did sign
She never intended to enter into the contract to which she unknowingly became a party
Her mind did not accompany her thumb impressions
This is a case that fails within the principle enunciated in Ningawwa vs Byrappa  3 Ors supra and it was therefore a totally void transaction
Accordingly as stated in Gorakh Nath Dube supra the suit is not maintainable by reason of the bar contained in the Act
The High Court has in our view rightly held that the remedy of the plaintiff lies in the proceedings pending before the consolidation authorities and it is open to the parties to approach them for appropriate relief
In the circumstances we see no merit in this appeal
It is ac cordingly dismissed but we make no order as to costs
PSS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
A case was instituted on a private complaint by the appellant for offences under Sections 323 and 452 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class who transferred the case to Second Class Magistrate for enquiry
The Second Class Magistrate issued process to the respondents which was challenged under Section 482 Cr
PC on the ground that the First Class Magistrate transferred the case without taking cognizance and that the subsequent proceedings were illegal
The High Court dismissed the petition
Again the respondents approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr
PC alleging that the case had not been taken cognizance of before it was transferred
This time the High Court accepted the plea and quashed the proceedings
This appeal by special leave challenges the High Court s order on the grounds that the second application under Section 482 Cr
PC ought not to have been entertained as it amounted to review of the earlier order and it was contrary to the spirit of section 362 Cr
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD 11 The inherent power under Section 482 Cr
PC is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure ends of justice
Such power cannot be exer cised to do something which is expressly barred under the Code
If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Code and is expressly barred it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision
If there had been change in the circumstances of the case it would be in order for the High Court to exercise its inher ent power in the prevailing circumstances and pass appropri ate orders to secure the ends of justice or to 789 prevent the abuse of the process of the Court
Where there is no such changed circumstance and the decision has to be arrived at on the facts that existed as on the date of earlier order the exercise of the power to reconsider the same materials to arrive at different conclusion is in effect a review which is expressly barred under section 362
790F H 791A 12 Ira matter is covered by an express letter of law the court cannot give a go by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of review under Section 362 Cr
PC 791E H Sooraj Devi vs Pyare Lal   relied on
Superintendent  Rememberancer of Legal Affairs vs Mohan Singh  referred to 2
In the instant case there had been a definite find ing that the complaint was taken cognizance of by the Magis trate before he transferred the proceedings under section 1922 Cr
PC for enquiry under section 202 Cr
This finding has been arrived at after perusal of the record of the proceedings before the Magistrate and on a consideration of the report of the concerned Magistrate
A reappraisal of the facts on record to determine whether such cognizance had been taken in a subsequent proceeding is not therefore warranted
It was not open to the parties to reagitate the question by a fresh application nor was the court empowered under section 482 to reconsider the matter
791 B C