The jurisdiction of the civil court to grant relief regarding agricultural land is exclusive to the revenue court under Section 331 of the UPZA & LR Act.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. –

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2. In original suit no. 867 of 2009 (Vishva Nath Yadav v. Balli Yadav & others), the paint case in brief was that disput agricultural property is ancestral one, which was earlier owned by grand-father of plaintiff Kauleshwar. After the death of Kauleshwar, his son Balli Yadav (father of plaintiff, and defendant no.-1), plaintiff Shiv Nath Yadav (husband of defendant no.-2 Asharfi Devi) and Kattal @ Surya Nath (husband of defendant no.-3 Kalawati Devi) became co-owners of this property. plaintiff is owner of half of the disput agricultural property but his father Balli Yadav, defendant no.-1 had executed gift-deed of said property in favour of his daughter-in-laws (defendant nos. 2 and 3). Since the plaintiff's father had no right to execute the gift-deed of whole of the disput property, and the plaintiff is owner of half share of this land and is in its joint possession, and since the gift-deed dated 30.05.2009 was executed by defendant no.-1 without his free will and under influence of drug, therefore the plaintiff had filed suit for cancellation of said gift-deed, and also for permanent injunction with prayer that defendants be restrained from interfering in joint possession and user of half share of disput agricultural field and from transferring it in favour of any third person without getting it partitioned.

3. After accepting written statement and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, Civil Judge (J.D.) Mohammadabad Gohna, Mau had decreed the original suit and restrained defendants from interfering in half share of agricultural field and its crops of plaintiff and evicting the plaintiff without getting it partitioned and from transferring any particular share of property in question.

4. Against the judgment of trial court, civil appeal no. 52/2013 (Kalawati v. Vishva Nath Yadav & others) was preferred, which was heard and allowed by the judgment dated 18.2.2016 of District Judge, Mau. In this judgment, inter alia, first appellate court had held that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed in suit because of facts that he had failed to prove registered gift-deed in question was result of fraud or misrepresentation or undue influence over defendant no.-1. On the point of law, first appellate court had held that if plaintiff claims to be the co-owner of disput agricultural land, then he can get relief of permanent injunction only after he gets his share in disput land partitioned under Section 176 of UPZA & LR Act. On the basis of these findings, first appellate court had reversed the judgment of trial court and dismissed the original suit by allowing the appeal.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of first appellate court, present second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff of the original suit.

6. The first main contention of learned counsel for the appellant was that defendant no.-1 Balli Yadav had given statement in court that he had not willingly executed the gift-deed but at the time of his treatment he was drugged by his daughter-in-law who had manipulated the execution and registration of gift-deed, and he had put his thumb impression on this document without understanding its contents. He contended that on the basis of this statement alone, registered gift-deed in question is liable to be cancelled. He further contended that since plaintiff-appellant is coparcener and co-owner of disput agricultural land, therefore, he has right to get injunction for securing his legal rights. He contended that lower appellate court had erroneously ignored these facts and passed erroneous judgment, therefore, appeal should be admitted for being allowed.

7. These contentions were refuted by learned counsel for the respondents who submitted that there has been correct finding of fact of first appellate court that no misrepresentation or fraud was committed in execution of gift-deed in question, and this finding of fact being n