Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. It is admitted fact that parties are resident of same village Madho Math. It is also admitted that on request of defendant-respondent plaintiff had agreed to sell his property. It is also admitted that on 19.7.2004 plaintiff had executed sale-deed in question in favour of defendant-respondent and received consideration (receiving of consideration is denied in plaint but admitted in evidence and also during arguments).

3. Plaintiff had filed original suit with averment that he had agreed to sell his Deeh land, which is situated in front of the house of defendant but at the time of execution of sale-deed in question, draft of said deed was not read and explained to him, and in place of land of Abadi-Deeh the sale-deed of agricultural land relating to 1/3rd share of plaintiff of plot No. 2/2 was got written by defendant. Since plaintiff had never consented to execute sale-deed of agricultural land, therefore the sale-deed in question dated 19.7.2004 was obtained by defendant fraudulently. The disputed land was not partitioned and no consideration was paid to plaintiff and defendant has not obtained any possession of disputed property. Therefore for these reasons the sale-deed in question be cancelled and defendant be restrained from taking possession of any part of plot No. 2/2 without getting it partitioned by metes and bounds.

4. In written-statement, the defendant had denied the plaint averments and pleaded that plaintiff had willingly executed registered sale-deed in question of whole of his share in disputed plot after receiving consideration, and no fraud was committed. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. After framing of the issues the evidences of the parties were accepted in the trial Court and then, by the judgment dated 25.1.2012 of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-IV, Ballia, the original suit was dismissed. In this judgment the trial Court had held that plaintiff’s case is not believable that he had not received consideration money and had not willingly executed sale-deed of disputed property of his share of plot No. 2/2.

6. Against the judgment of trial Court, the plaintiffs had filed Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2012, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 29.8.2015 of Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff of the original suit.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that trial Court had not framed any specific issue regarding conduct of defendant-respondent and the fraud committed by him. Therefore the judgments passed without framing proper issues are erroneous. In this regard a perusal of record reveals that trial Court had framed first issue as to whether sale-deed in question dated 19.7.2004 is liable to be cancelled on grounds mentioned in plaint. This issue covers all the points raised by the plaintiff-appellant. Apart from it, a perusal of judgment of the two lower Courts reveal that all the points raised by the plaintiff-appellant had been considered and then the judgements in question were passed. A perusal of memorandum of first appeal reveals that no such question of non-framing of proper issue was raised in it. Therefore, plaintiff-appellant had no legal right to raise this issue even in first appeal. Such points cannot be raised directly in civil appeal. In this regard, arguments of learned counsel for the appellant are found unacceptable.

8. The second point raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that no formal point of determination was framed by first appellate Court, therefore, its judgment should be treated as erroneous. A perusal of record reveals that the only point of determination between the parties in original suit and this matter was as to whether sale-deed in question dated 19.7.2004 was resul