Fraud as to the character of a deed makes the transaction void and bars a civil suit under consolidation law.

A misrepresentation that induces execution of a deed by deceiving the signer about the very character of the document, rather than its contents or legal effect, renders the transaction void because there is no real assent. On that basis, the sale deed obtained from an illiterate plaintiff was treated as void, and the challenge to it could be decided in consolidation proceedings. The civil suit for cancellation was therefore barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for cancellation of the sale deed was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on the ground that the document executed by the plaintiff was void rather than voidable.

Analysis: The plaintiff, an illiterate person, was deceived into believing that she was executing only a gift deed in favour of her daughter, whereas a sale deed in favour of the defendants was also obtained from her. The misrepresentation went to the very character of the document and not merely to its contents or legal effect. A transaction procured by fraud as to the character of the document is void, because the signer's mind does not accompany the signature and there is no real assent. In such a case, the question of validity can be determined in consolidation proceedings, and the civil suit is barred by Section 49.

Conclusion: The sale deed was void and the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953; the appeal failed.

---