Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. During argument it appeared that the matter may be decided on merits on the basis of admitted facts. Therefore, it is accordingly decided.

2. Admittedly, original owner of disputed agricultural property of plots No. 118 and 102 of village Durjanpur was Baldev, who had died on 1.7.2002 Admittedly a registered will-deed dated 27.6.2002 was executed on behalf of Beldev in favour of three plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 (present appellant Smt. Laugania). It is also admitted that after the death of Baldev name of defendant No. 1 appellant Smt. Laugania was recorded in revenue papers.

3. Then plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No. 233/2013 for permanent injunction claiming their joint possession and right as co-bhumidhar of disputed property with defendant No.1, on the basis of said registered will executed by Baldev. This suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 9.7.2013 of trial Court with finding that after filing of original suit, the plaintiffs had filed suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act for declaration of their rights as co-bhumidhar of disputed property, and since such declaration is necessary for granting relief of permanent injunction, so such declaration being within exclusive jurisdiction of revenue Court, the suit is beyond jurisdiction of Civil Court. On these grounds, trial Court had dismissed the original suit.

4. In Civil Appeal No. 55/2013 preferred against the judgment of trial Court, the first appellate Court had admitted all the above mentioned facts, but gave finding to the effect that plaintiff-appellants have claimed their rights through registered will-deed executed by Baldev, and that entries in revenue records are for the fiscal purposes only, so plaintiffs have co-ownership right in disputed property on basis of said will. With these findings, first appellate Court had allowed the appeal and decreed the original suit of plaintiffs.

5. Against the judgment of first appellate Court, present Second Appeal has been preferred by defendant Smt. Laugania.

6. During argument, it was admitted by the parties that dispute relates to ownership of agricultural plots No. 102 and 118, and also for declaration of their co-ownership and bhumidhari rights over this land, for which the plaintiff-respondents have already filed a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act in revenue Court.

7. There is specific plaint case that the plaintiff had acquired rights over disputed agricultural property as bhumidhar with transferable rights. The basis of claim of his relief sought in plaint if bhumidhari rights acquired by plaintiff-respondent. Therefore, admittedly, the plaint case and relief sought by appellant in his plaint is based on his alleged bhumidhari rights of plaintiff-respondent. The defendants can be restrained from interfering in bhumidhari rights of plaintiff, as prayed in plaint, only if they are declared bhumidhar or their bhumidhari rights are formally recognized by Civil Court.

8. The suit of plaintiff-respondent has been based on claim of his ownership and bhumidhari rights over disputed agricultural land, for which the plea of bar of suit under Section 331 UPZA & LR Act was taken by defendants.

9. Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 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 an~hing contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (5 of 1908) take cognizance of any 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 suit, application or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not