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

2. The admitted case of the parties has been in brief was that Jagarnath had two sons Hari Ram and Lal Chand, who have partitioned the property after death of Jagarnath. Hari Ram had two wives. From one wife Rama Devi he had one son Banshidhar (plaintiff) and from another wife Teja Devi, he had two sons namely Sukhlal (defendant No. 2) and Khushihal (defendant No. 5). Defendant No. 2 Geeta is wife of Sukhlal. Defendant No. 1 Sheela is wife of defendant No. 5 Khushihal. Admittedly the disputed property is of agricultural in nature for which the original Suit No. 307/2011 was instituted on 28.4.2011.

3. The plaint case in brief was that disputed agricultural ancestral property was although in the name of plaintiff’s father Hari Ram (defendant No. 3), but he had no right of ownership on whole of the property. Plaintiff being co-parcener was also the co-owner of this property. But Hari Ram had executed registered gift-deed (deed of donation) of whole of the property in favour of his daughter-in-laws (defendant No. 1 and 2) on 4.2.2011. Since he had no right to transfer whole of the disputed property, therefore the plaintiff had filed suit for cancellation of said gift-deed on ground that defendant No. 3 was disabled person who could not understand things, deed in question was not read and explained to him, said deed was without consideration and unauthorised; therefore it should be cancelled.

4. In written-statement defendants had pleaded that disputed property is not ancestral or joint Hindu family property. Plaintiff had been living separately for 30 years and he has separate house and separate cultivation. Defendant No. 3 Hari Ram is its sole owner and Bhumidhar. When defendant No. 3 had executed gift-deed in favour of defendants No. 4 and 5, and application for mutation was moved by them in revenue Court, then plaintiff had raised objection on 22.3.2011 in mutation proceedings. Thereafter he filed original suit on 28.4.2011. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute involved in this matter relating to ownership of agricultural property. Therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. In Original Suit, trial Court had framed several issues including issue No. 7 to the effect that whether suit is barred by Section 331 of UP ZA & LR Act? After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, Civil Judge (J.D.), Varanasi had decided this preliminary issue No. 7 in affirmative and in favour of defendants by its order dated 25.11.2014, in which it was held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit.

6. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2014 of the trial Court, Civil Appeal No. 68/2015 was preferred by plaintiff. This appeal was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 13.1.2016 of Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Varanasi. Aggrieved by the judgment of lower Court as well as first appellate Court, the plaintiff of the original suit had preferred the present second appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff-appellant was co-parcenar in the disputed property with his father Hari Ram and brothers; therefore the trial Court had passed erroneous judgment ignoring his co-parcenary ownership rights of disputed agricultural land. He contended that the judgment of lower Court was based on non application of mind. Since only Civil Court has right to cancel the deed, so no question of bar of jurisdiction arises in this matter. He further pleaded that original suit was filed for the simple relief of cancellation of gift-deed, and there was no involvement of declaration of title of agricultural land, so the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter. Therefore the appeal should be admitted for being allowed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions of appellant side contended that co-parcenary right of ag