S. D. KHARE, J. :- These two appeals and the civil revision have been referred to this Bench because a common question of law is involved in them. The extent of the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts in certain matters, which are otherwise civil in nature, has been determined in several cases decided by this Court and it was noticed in Second Appeal No. 710 of 1967 that there is an apparent conflict in two Division Bench decisions of this Court, both pronounced in the year 1965.

2. No question was formulated for the opinion of the Full Bench in any of the two second appeals or the connected civil revision, and all of them have got to be finally disposed of by this Bench. Each of these appeals and the civil revision shall, therefore, be considered separately after the common question of jurisdiction has been discussed.

3. The suit which gave rise to Second Appeal No. 282 of 1967 was for the cancellation of three sale deeds executed by defendant no. 7, one member of the family only (who, if separated, could have a half share in the joint family property) for self and as a guardian of the plaintiff. The property sold was bhumidhari land. The alternative prayer was that if the transferor was held to be competent to transfer his interest in the property the sale deed be cancelled to the extent of the other half share in the property belonging to the plaintiff. The relief of joint possession was also sought.

4. So far as Second Appeal No. 710 of 1967 is concerned, the suit as originally filed was for permanent injunction against other co-sharers of the bhumidhari plot restraining them from making constructions over the land of the holding. Later a prayer for demolition of the constructions made by the defendants and for joint possession was added by way of amendment on the allegations that the constructions had been made during the pendency of the suit.

5. Civil Revision No. 1711 of 1965 arises out of a suit against trespassers for demolition and possession and the closing of a door. The common point for consideration is whether one or more or all of these suits were exclusively cognizable by revenue courts.

6. Another question which is common to the two appeals only and relevant for ourposes of determining the question of jurisdiction is what is the status of a co-bhumidhar and whether or not a bhumidhari property is subject to any personal law (e. g., Hindu Law governing joint family property) so that the entire joint family could be deemed to be one single bhumidhar and no transfer could be made unless it was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate.

7. It would be convenient to consider the second question first.

8. Hindu joint families have existed from times immemorial and they exist even now However, it is by no means necessary that every Joint Hindu family should be possessed of joint family property also. Where any property is ancestral or it is acquired by all the members of a joint Hindu family or after having been acquired by one member of the joint family only it is thrown in the common stock it is regarded to be joint family property or coparcenary property. Until partition takes place, or only one member of the family is left without having any male issue, the coparcenary property remains with the family and upon the death of any one member only his interest devolves on the surviving coparceners. The Karta or manager of the family alone has the right to transfer the property either for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate.

9. The first question for consideration, therefore, is whether bhumidhari property governed by the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ever become joint family property or coparcenary property.

10. A bhumidhari property is also property, and, therefore, it might be said that like any other property it should also be capable of becoming joint family property or coparcenary property. On he other hand it can be contended that bhumidhari rights