The real 'cause of action' determines the jurisdiction of the court, and the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied.

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

This petition has been filed to assail the validity of judgment and order dated 18.01.2016, passed by the District Judge, Balrampur whereby revision petition filed by respondent no.2 against the order dated 22.05.2014, passed by the learned trial court holding therein that the suit filed by the respondent no.2 is barred by provision of Section 331 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (for brevity 'Act'), has been allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.2, who has lodged caveat.

3. The facts which gave rise to the present petition are that khasra plot no. 778, situate in village Mathura Kalan, Pargana and Tehsil Balrampur was recorded in the name of Sri Jiledar. A sale deed is said to have been executed on 24.07.2003 for a sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- in respect of house situated on an area of 342 sq. ft. which forms part of plot no.778. On the basis of said sale deed, name of the petitioner is said to have been mutated on the basis of an order passed by the competent revenue authority on 01.09.2003 in Mutation Case No. 1325.

4. It is noticeable that the alleged sale deed dated 24.07.2003 has not been executed by the recorded tenure holder-Sri Jiledar but by his wife Smt. Savitri Devi, according to whom Sri Jiledar is mentally retarded. Respondent no.2 filed a suit against the petitioner for possession and cancellation of sale deed dated 24.07.2003 executed by Smt Savitri Devi in favour of the petitioner. The plaint's allegation are that the plaintiff-respondent no.2 is in possession of the suit property on the basis of sale deed executed by the original owner of the property Sri Jiledar on 24.07.2003 for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Balrampur on 30.07.2003 and since then he is in possession of the suit property. Further averment has been made in the plaint that Smt. Savitri Devi, wife of Sri Jiledar is a very clever lady who executed the sale deed on 24.07.2003 in favour of the petitioner alleging herself to be guardian of Sri Jiledar who is said to be mentally retarded. The averment of the plaintiff in pith and substance is that Smt. Savitri Devi, wife of Sri Jiledar has fraudulently shown Sri Jiledar as mentally retarded. In the plaint, it has further been pleaded that Sri Jiledar is a completely healthy person and he is not mentally retarded; rather he is a healthy person who understands and comprehends the things. Thus, the contention of the plaintiff is that by playing fraud a sale deed has been executed by Smt Savitri Devi, wife of Sri Jiledar who did not have any right to execute the sale deed.

5. Various issues were framed by learned trial court including the issue no.11. Issue no.11 framed by learned trial court was as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.2 is barred by the provision of Section 331 of the Act. Learned trial court has accepted the plea raised by the defendant regarding non-maintainability of the suit on the ground of provisions contained in Section 331 of the Act. While arriving at such a conclusion, learned trial court in its order dated 22.05.2014 has observed that since name of the petitioner has been recorded in the revenue records and the name of plaintiff is not recorded, hence in such circumstances, it will be the revenue court which will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the revenue court can grant declaration and thereafter decree the suit for possession by eviction of the defendant.

6. The plaintiff-respondent no.2 filed revision petition before the learned District Judge, who has allowed the revision petition holding therein that in the facts and circumstances of the case the suit filed by the plaintiff is triable by the civil court. It is this order passed by the revenue court dated 18.01.2016 which is under challenge in this petition.

7. Learned counsel for t