Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.

2. This is one of the defendants’ Second appeal arising out of O.S. No. 88 of 2000. The suit was decreed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Kannauj on 10.2.2009. Against the said decree appellant/defendant No. 4 filed Civil appeal No. 17 of 2009 which was dismissed on 24.4.2009 by District Judge Kannauj, hence, this Second appeal.

3. Defendant respondent No. 5 Rampal was Bhumidhar of agricultural plot No. 1522 area 0.5 acre. Rampal sold 335 sq. meter specific portion of the said plot to the plaintiff respondent No. 1 through sale-deed dated 13.8.1990 and, thereafter, adjoining portion admeasuring 117 sq. meter was also sold on 10.12.1991 by him to the plaintiff (total area 452 sq. meter). Thereafter, through sale-deed dated 29.6.1994 Ram Pal sold the entire plot to defendant No. 4/appellant Smt. Tara Begum. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were husband and sons of Defendant No. 4. Relief claimed in the suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the area of 452 sq. meter of plot No. 1522. The earlier number of the plot was 688/1. During consolidation it was changed to 1522 area 0.56 acre. Defendants 1 to 4 pleaded that Rampal never executed any sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff and it appeared that some other person impersonated as Ram Pal. Defendants 1 to 4 also pleaded possession of appellant defendant No. 4. Rampal the seller appeared as witness of the plaintiff.

4. The Courts below found that even though in the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff plot number was not mentioned, however, boundaries were mentioned and from the boundaries it was quite clear that both the sold portion were situate in plot No. 1522. The defendant appellant did not file the original sale-deed which was executed in her favour, she only filed photo state copy of the same. The Courts below held that subsequent sale-deed was confined to that portion of plot No. 1522 of which the seller Rampal was bhoomidhar in possession at that time (i.e. excepting the area already sold by him to the plaintiff).

5. Before the lower appellate Court two new points were raised, one was regarding jurisdiction and the other was that the sale-deeds in favour of plaintiffs were illegal as consolidation was going on at that time and no permission of S.O.C. had been sought in accordance with Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act as it stood at that time. However, no evidence was brought on record to the effect that when consolidation started by issuance of notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act and when it concluded by issuance of notificatin under Sectioon 52 of the Act. Moreover, the provision requiring permission had been deleted in February 1991 by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1991 hence the said provision could not apply to the Second sale-deed of the plaintiff. As far as first sale-deed is concerned the lower appellate Court very rightly held that unless it was brought on record that at that time consolidation was going on, the plea could not be considered and that such plea should have been raised before the trial Court supported by the evidence regarding continuance of consolidation on 13.8.1990.

6. As far as jurisdiction of Civil Court is concerned the contention of the appellant was that suit being for possession of agricultural land it was cognizable only before the revenue Court and not civil Court. This plea was rightly rejected by the lower appellate Court. Firstly, this point ought to have been raised before the trial Court and as it was not raised there, hence, it could not for the first time be raised before the lower appellate Court. Section 331(1A) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act mandates that question of jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity latest by the date on which issues are framed. Section 331(1A) is quoted below:

331-A. Procedure when plea of land being used for agricultural