Sudhir Agarwal, J.;—

1. The preliminary objection raised by defendant that suit in question is not maintainable in Civil Court having been rejected by Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 09.09.1997 and petitioners' revision rejected by Revisional Court vide judgment dated 31.10.1998, has given rise to this petition seeking writ of certiorari for quashing of both the aforesaid orders.

2. It appears that Original Suit No. 186 of 1995 was filed by plaintiffs-respondents for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.12.1992 on the ground of fraud and consequential relief for giving possession of land in question to plaintiffs.

3. The petitioners-defendants raised an objection that since plaintiffs are not recorded tenure holder in revenue records, therefore, original suit is not maintainable in Civil Court and is entertainable by Revenue Court. The Trial Court considered aforesaid preliminary objection and rejected the same vide order dated 09.09.1997, whereagainst petitioners' Civil Revision No. 86 of 1997 has also been rejected by District Judge, Sitapur vide order dated 31.10.1998.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, since plaintiffs-respondents were not recorded in revenue records as tenure holder, therefore, suit before Civil Court was not maintainable and barred by Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1951"). Reliance is placed on a decision of Apex Court in Kamla Prasad and others Vs. Kishna Kant Pathak and others, 2007(4) SCC 213.

5. Suit for declaration which are entertainable by Revenue Courts under Section 229-B of Act, 1951, are as under:

"229-B. Declaratory suit by person claiming to be an asami of a holding or part thereof.- (1) Any person claiming to be an asami of a holding or any part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person may sue the land holder for a declaration of his rights as asami in such holding or part as the case may be.

(2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as asami under the landholder shall be impleaded as defendant.

(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) land (2) shall mutates mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a Bhumidhar with the amendment that for the word "landholder" the words "the State Government and the Gaon Sabha" are substituted therein."

6. Section 331 of 1950 Act talks of the cognizance of suit etc. under 1950 Act and reads as under:

"331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act.--(1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof or of a suit, application, or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application :

Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suits, applications or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof.

Explanation.--If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted.

(1-A) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), an objection that a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II, or as the case may be, a civil court, which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or proceeding, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document