The central legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the civil court in adjudicating ownership disputes over agricultural land is barred under Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act, and the essence of the matter in deciding the jurisdiction lies in whether the main question involved relates to the declaration of right or title.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. In original suit no. 610 of 2005 plaint case in brief was that plaintiff's ancestors have been bhumidhar of disputed agricultural property, but their names were fraudulently deleted from this land in revenue records and names of defendants' third set (defendants no. 5, 6 & 7) were recorded over this property. After completion of consolidation proceedings, name of defendants' third set continued as bhumidhar in revenue records and they are unauthorizedly trying to interfere in possession of plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff had filed suit for declaration of his bhumidhari rights under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act in revenue court which was dismissed, and its appeal is pending. On the basis of these facts, plaintiff had sought relief of permanent injunction.

3. In written-statement, plaint averments were denied and, inter alia, it was pleaded that suit is barred by Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. The trial court had framed several issues on the basis of pleadings, in which issue no.-5 was to the effect as to whether the suit is barred by provisions of Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act.

4. After affording opportunity of hearing, the trial court had held that in original suit filed for relief of permanent injunction, the declaration of right and title in disputed agricultural land is involved indirectly, and this main point in dispute can be decided only by revenue court because name of defendants are recorded over disputed property; therefore the suit is barred by Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. With this finding, the trial court had decided issue no.-5 in affirmative and held that suit is not maintainable, and dismissed the suit.

5. Against the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal No.11/2011 (Ram Charan v. Balchand & others) was preferred by plaintiff of the original suit. This was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 14.3.2016 by Additional District Judge, Court No.-2 Ghazipur. In this judgment, first appellate court had also held that the point in dispute in this matter is as to whether the name of defendants were improperly mutated over disputed land or not, and this can be decided only by revenue court. First appellate court had held that title follows the possession, and original suit has been filed on the basis of title, therefore the matter relating to title of disputed agricultural land can be decided only revenue court and suit is barred by Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. With this finding, first appellate court had confirmed the finding of trial court and dismissed the appeal.

6. Against the judgments of trial court as well as the first appellate court, present second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff of the original suit.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the name of ancestor of plaintiff was rightly recorded before consolidation proceeding over disputed agricultural land, but said name was fraudulently removed during consolidation proceedings and name of defendants were mutated. He submitted that plaintiff's father was illiterate person and could not raise objections during consolidation proceedings. He submitted that when plaintiff came to know about the incorrect entry in revenue record regarding name of defendants, then he had filed suit for declaration of its title before revenue court under Section 229 B of UPZA & LR Act, which is pending. Therefore, he is entitled for relief of permanent injunction if plaint case is proved regarding his ownership and possession. So appeal should be admitted for being allowed.

8. This contention was refuted by learned counsel for the respondents who submitted that suit under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act was rightly decided by revenue court and its appeal before court of Additional Commissioner has also been dismissed and that order would become final; therefore it has been declared by the revenue court that plaintiff is not owner or bhumidhar of disputed agricult