Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission of Second Appeal and perused the records.

2. In the original suit No. 825/2005 (Smt. Mulka Devi and others v. Ramagya Yadav and others) plaint’s averment was that Mahavir had fraudulently pasted his photograph and posed himself as Mahadev before the Sub-Registrar and executed disputed sale-deeds dated 11.4.1988 and 21.5.1988 on behalf of Mahadev in favour of defendant No. 1 Ramagya Yadav, which was without consideration and liable to be declared void; and defendants be restrained from interfering in possession of plaintiffs over disputed property.

3. The trial Court had accepted written statement, framed issues, accepted the adduced evidences and thereafter passed judgement dated 11.9.2013, by which plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.

4. The judgement of the trial Court was challenged by the plaintiffs through Civil Appeal No. 211/2013 (Kharbhan Yadav and others v. Ramagya Yadav). The first appellate Court had framed some points of determination and decided them against plaintiffs-appellants holding that plaintiffs’ suit was time barred and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter as it related to ownership of disputed agricultural property and the jurisdiction of the Court is barred under Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. On the basis of these findings, the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 1, Varanasi, had dismissed the first appeal by his judgement dated 15.10.2015.

5. Aggrieved by the judgements of trial Court as well as first appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs in original suit.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants contended that when there was evidence that Mahadev had fraudulently pasted his photograph in place of Mahadev and impersonated him at the time of execution of sale-deeds dated 11.4.1988 and 21.5.1988, then original suit should have been decreed for cancellation of those sale-deeds.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contention of the appellants’ side and contended that the first appellate Court had rightly given findings that original suit was time barred because plaintiffs-appellants had knowledge of disputed sale-deeds during mutation proceedings in the year 1996, but they had filed suit in the year 2006, which is much beyond lapse of period of limitation. He also contended that since the dispute relates to actual relief tofor declaration of the title of agricultural property, and after contesting the name of defendants-respondents had been muted in Revenue Record then the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. He contended that in any case plaintiffs may get proper remedy by filing a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for declaration of their rights over the disputed land. Therefore, appeal should be dismissed in limine.

8. A perusal of records and memo of revision reveal that the substantial questions of law framed by the appellants side in memo of appeal, are in fact not substantial question of law. The first appellate Court had decided the first appeal on the points of law relating to the suit being barred by limitation and the Civil Court having no jurisdiction to decide the real matter in dispute.

9. So far as the first contention of learned counsel for the respondents relating to claim of plaintiffs being time barred is concerned, from perusal of records, it is found unacceptable. Plaintiffs-appellants have been contesting regarding their rights over the disputed land initially in Revenue Court in proceedings of mutation. After conclusion of mutation proceedings they disclosed these facts in plaint and claimed the benefits of Section-14 of Limitation Act, which was rightly granted to them by trial Court. Although the first appellate Court had decided