Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This Civil Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the defendant against the order dated 11.3.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 3), Agra in Original Suit No. 844 of 1995 whereby he has decided the issue No. 8 and 9 in favour of the plaintiff rejecting the objection of the defendant in respect of jurisdiction of the Civil Court over the disputed property.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a Original Suit No. 844 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra for possession over the property in suit and the mesne profit. The plaintiff case is that it is a Company duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its head office at Kolkata. The plaintiff claims that one of its Director Shyam Sunder Taparia purchased a plots No. 82(M), 83(M)/1(M), 84-A(M), 85-A(M), 86-A(M), 87-A(M), 88(M) measuring 3 bighas 7 biswas 8 bsiwansis situated at Mauza Chhalesar/Bholai Mohammadpur, Teshil Etmadpur, district Agra. The Company was incorporated on 23.5.1973. Shyam Sunder Taparia later on relinquished the land in favour of the Company after its incorporation. Shyam Sunder Taparia stood in fiduciary relationship in relation to the plaintiff. In fact the property in question was owned by the plaintiff Company.

3. Since from very beginning the land has been used for the plaintiff factory and has never been used for agriculture. It is stated that the land was mortgaged with the Central Bank of India. Due to some dispute the factory was closed in the year 1980. It is stated that after insolvency of 1991, when Satya Narain Taparia visited the factory unit he found that the defendant No. 1 to 6 are running their business under the name and style of defendant No. 7 M/s. Salig Ram Food and Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. On inquiry they failed to show any document for approval of title in their favour. Hence, he filed the present suit.

4. A written statement was filed by the revisionist/defendant. The stand taken in the written statement was that the plaintiff Company was not owner of the land. Shyam Sunder Tapadia is recorded Bhumidhar in the revenue record and also subsequently recorded in the consolidation proceedings. However, the location of the land and installation of plant and machinery over the portion of the land is not denied by the revisionist/defendant in the written statement. It is also stated that since the year 1985 the possession was delivered to the revisionist/defendant on execution of the lease deed and Oil Mill was started. It is also stated that the sign Board of the defendant No. 7 was fixed on the main gate of the premises after incorporation of M/s. Salig Ram Food and Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. The revisionist-defendant has relied on an agreement dated 17.2.1982 and claims that the possession of the property was handed over to them under the party performance of the contract of the agreement dated 17.2.1982 to transfer entire shares of the Company.

5. The trial Court has framed the issue No. 8 and 9 in respect of the suit being barred by Section 49 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (the Act of 1953) and under Section 331 read with Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act of 1950). The trial Court has decided both the issues as a preliminary issue in favour of the plaintiff and has held that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to hear the suit.

6. I have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Swaplin Kumar for the plaintiff-respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the plaintiff-respondent has based their claim on the deed of relinquishment dated 12.11.1973. Shyam Sunder Tapadia is recorded as a Bhumidhar in the revenue record and the land in question is agricultural land. Under Section 189 of the Act of 1950, prescribed extinction