IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11964 of 2010 SUKHDEO MEHTA S/O SOBHI MEHTA DECEASED R/O VILL.- BORHA, P.S.- KARJAIN, DISTT.- SUPAUL. ….. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. BALDEO MEHTA S/O SITARAM MEHTA 2. JAGDISH MEHTA S/O SITARAM MEHTA 3. MAESHWAR MEHTA S/O SITARAM MEHTA 4. SITARAM MEHTA S/O LATE BUNI MEHTA RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4 R/O VILL.- BORHA, P.S.- KARJAIN, DISTT.- SUPAUL. RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Yogendra Pd. Sinha,-I, & Arun Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ------ 02/ 10.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed by defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 23.04.2010 by which Subordinate Judge-I, Supaul rejected his petition under Sections 4(B) and 4(C) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 in Title Suit No.36 of 2003. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs- respondents for declaration of their title and also for declaring certain deeds to be void. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main relief in the suit was with respect to declaration of title and the reliefs sought against the deeds were only ancillary in nature and hence the suit had clearly abated as admittedly consolidation proceeding had been going on in the area and the lands in question are agriculture in nature. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well - 2 - as the materials on record and the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner it is quite apparent that the plaintiffs have no doubt sought declaration of their title over the suit land, but that relief is dependant upon the declaration of certain deeds to be void. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the relief of declaration of the deeds in question to be void are merely ancillary in nature, rather it is also the main relief claimed by the plaintiffs. 5. The law is well settled in this regard that if a document or an instrument is void in nature and is sought to be merely ignored for declaration of title, the jurisdiction of the consolidation authority exists for such declaration. But if the document in question is voidable in nature and are sought to be declared as void in the reliefs claimed in the suit, the said jurisdiction does not lie with the consolidation authority and only the civil court can decide and grant such relief. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the court below. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)