Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, for the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the orders of Civil Judge (J.D.) dated 13.10.2014, deciding issue relating to jurisdiction of Civil Court to try a suit for cancellation of sale-deed, in respect of agricultural land, in favour of the plaintiff and District Judge dated 13.3.2016, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against aforesaid order.

3. Shivnath (respondent-1) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 2694 of 1997) for cancellation of sale-deed dated 5.5.1997, allegedly executed by him in favour of Chandrika (the petitioner). It has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant-2 are real brothers and original resident of village Naktapar tappa Nagta Tikar, pargana Silhat, district Deoria, where they jointly owned plots 488, 487 and 494. For earning livelihood, the plaintiff used to resides mostly at village Mailani, district Lakhimpur Kheri. Defendant-1 got sale-deed dated 5.5.1997, executed through some imposter of the plaintiff and on its basis got his name mutated in revenue records also. Sale-deed neither bears the thumb impression of the plaintiff nor photo affixed on it, belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is still in possession of the land subject-matter of the sale-deed. The plaintiff has neither entered into any agreement to sell nor any sale consideration was paid to him.

4. The petitioner contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. It has been stated by the petitioner that the plaintiff and defendant-2 were his uncle’s sons. The plaintiff and defendant-2 left the village Naktapar from more than 20 years ago and permanently settled at village Mailani district Lakhimpur Kheri. The plaintiff voluntarily executed sale-deed dated 5.5.1997, in favour of the petitioner after taking sale consideration of Rs. 80,000/- and handed over possession over the land to him. The name of the petitioner was also mutated in revenue record. Allegations that sale-deed was obtained through some imposter of the plaintiff has been denied. Various technical pleas were raised. It has also been stated that as at present defendant-1 was recorded tenure holder and in possession of agricultural land i.e. plots 488, 487 and 494, which are subject-matter of sale-deed as such the suit is essentially a suit for declaration of title and possession over agricultural land as such jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is barred under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed by Trial Court. Issue No. 7 was framed to the effect as to whether jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is barred under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951.

5. After hearing the parties, Civil Judge (J.D.), by order dated 13.10.2014, held that the suit is for cancellation of the sale-deed as such Civil Court has jurisdiction to try it. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Civil Revision No. 73 of 2014) against aforesaid order. District Judge, by judgment dated 10.3.2016, dismissed the revision. Hence this petition has been filed.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of sale-deed dated 5.5.1997, the name of the petitioner has been recorded over plots 488, 487 and 494, which are subject-matter of sale-deed and he is in possession over over it. At present, the petitioner is a recorded tenure holder and in possession of agricultural land i.e. plots 488, 487 and 494, which are subject-matter of sale-deed as such the suit is essentially a suit for declaration of title and possession over agricultural land. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to try such suit is barred under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. He relied upon the judgments Supreme Court in Kamla Prasad v. Krishna Kant Path, (2007) 4 SCC 213 and judgment of this Court in Kundan Singh v. Additional District Judge and others, 2009 Rajaswa Nirnay Sangah 59.

7. I have considered the arguments of the