IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.415 of 2007 1. KOUSHALYA DEVI, W/O. RAJENDRA PASAD 2. ARUNA DEVI, WIFE OF SUNIL PRASAD Both resident of village – Dharampur, P.S. – Hilsa, P.O. – Hilsa, District – Nalanda. … Principal Defendants 3. Janak Devi, wife of Chandeshwar Mahto, R/o. village – Lodipur, P.S. – Ekangar Sarai, P. O. – Telhara, District – Nalanda. 4. Savitri Devi, W/o. – Jagdeo Prasad, resident of village – Bahadi Bigha, P.S. – Karai Parsurai, P.O. – Makrauta, Distrcit – Nalanda. 5. Sunil Prasad, S/o. – Raghuni Mahto. 6. Sanju Kumar 7. Manoj Kumar Defendants-Petitioners No. 6 and 7 both sons of Rajendra Prasad. All resident of village – Dharampur, P.S. – Hilsa, P.O. – Hilsa, district – Nalanda. … Defendants-Petitioners Versus 1. DULARI DEVI, widow of Late Suresh Prasad. 2. Basanti Devi, widow of Ram Pravesh Prasad. Both residents of village – Dharampur, P.S. Hilsa, P.O. – Hilsa, District – Nalanda. … Plaintiffs in the court below … Opposite Parties. ----------- 02/ 17.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendants-petitioners challenging order dated 19.01.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge – II, Hilsa rejected their petition for review of court’s earlier order dated 10.08.2006 by which their application under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) filed in Title Suit No. No. 60 of 1994 was rejected. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties for declaration that the four deeds of gift all dated - 2 - 19.01.1993 executed by Raghunandan Prasad in the name of Koushalya Devi and others (defendants) were forged, fabricated and void and that the plaintiffs were not bound by them and also for partition of their share and other ancillary reliefs. 4. It further transpires that during the pendency of the said suit the defendants-petitioners filed an application on 28.10.2005 under the provision of Section 4 (c) of the Act claiming that the suit had abated and cannot continue. The said application was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge –II, Hilsa vide his order dated 10.08.2006 on the ground that the consolidation proceeding had already stopped in the area. 5. The defendants-petitioners filed an application in the trial court under the provisions of Section 144 read with Order XLVII, Rule – 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of its earlier order dated 10.08.2006. This application of the petitioner was also rejected by the learned court below vide its impugned order dated 19.01.2007 on the ground that no further notification under Section 3 of the Act has been published by the State of Bihar. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the pleadings of the respective parties, it is quite apparent that the suit in question was filed for declaration that the four deeds of gift in favour of the defendants were forged, fabricated and void and plaintiffs were not bound by them and after such declaration plaintiffs’ claim for partition was also made. 7. Since the suit has been filed for declaration that the deeds - 3 - of gift in question were void, the said relief does not come within the purview of the Act nor the consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to decide the question of voidablity of any document. In the said circumstances, the suit for such relief cannot abate even if the consolidation proceeding had started in the area as the provision of the Act would not be applicable to such suits. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the aforesaid application/claim of the defendants-petitioners cannot be legally allowed. 8. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. kundan/ (S. N. Hussain, J.)