The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the jurisdiction of the civil court in cases where the plaintiff is not recorded in the revenue records.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 7.4.2016 and 16.4.2016 respectively, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Basti, dismissing the Civil Appeal No.70 of 2013, arising out of Original Suit No.571/1988, wherein the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2013 and 9.11.2013 respectively, dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed.

3. The appellants have formulated the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of the second appeal:-

(a) Whether the ancestral property inherited by the defendant no.1 can be disposed of by sale deed to his in-laws son in the life time of his wife (plaintiff)?

(b) Whether the issue nos. 1, 10 and 12 have wrongly been decided by the courts below against the weight on the evidence on the record?

(c) Whether the will dated 10.2.1994 once decided by the trial court valid, after examining the evidence of the parties and no appeal was preferred by the defendants against the same, therefore, the findings of the court that on the will the evidence is required by the parties?

4. Plaint case in brief is that plaintiff (Ureha) is wife of defendant no.1 (Bharose). There was no male issue from the wedlock of plaintiff and defendant no.1 rather 3 daughters from their wedlock who are married and are residing along with their family in their in-law's house. It has been further mentioned in the plaint that defendant no.2 has fraudulently got executed the sale deed from defendant no.1 in respect to disputed land, accordingly, suit for injunction was filed by plaintiff and subsequently the relief for cancellation of sale deed was also added in the plaint.

5. In the written statement, defendants denied the plaint allegations and in their additional statement, it has been mentioned that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. It has been further mentioned that sale deed was rightly executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 as he was in the need of money. On the basis of the execution of registered sale deed, defendant no.2 is in possession of the disputed property, as such, the prayer was made that suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the suit, the following issues were framed before the trial court:-

1- D;k okfnuh çfroknhx.k dks okn i= esa fyf[kr dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr laifr cspus ls euk djok ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS\

2- D;k okfnuh dks okn nk;j djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS\

3- D;k bl U;k;ky; dks çLrqr okn ns[kus dk {ks=kf/kdkj çkIr ugha gS\

4- D;k okn /kkjk 331 mŒ çŒ tehankjh fouk'k ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\

5- D;k okn ekSu Lohd`fr o foca/ku ds fl)kUr ls ckf/kr gS\

6- D;k okn vYiewY;kafdr gS\

7- D;k çnr U;k; 'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\

8- D;k okn /kkjk 34 fof'k"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\

9- D;k okfnuh fdlh vU; vuqrks"k çkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\

10- D;k jkenso ds i{k esa fd;k x;k cSukek fnukad 21-5-88 ealw[k fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\

11- D;k çLrqr okn /kkjk 41 fof'k"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e ls ckf/kr gS\

12- D;k mjsgk us Ã'oj nsà ds gd esa olh;rukek fnukafdr& 10-02-94 dks fy[kk gS] ;fn gk¡ rks çHkko\

13- D;k çLrqr okn çkiyhZ çtsUVsM o csjhQkbM gS\

14- D;k nkok oknh la'kks/ku ds ckn vYiewY;kafdr gS rFkk çnr U;k;'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\

15- D;k nkok] oknh dky ckf/kr gS\

16- D;k çfroknhuh /kkjk 35 ¼v½ lhŒihŒlhŒ Lis'ky dkLV ikus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\

7. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their cases. On behalf of the defendants', the revenue entries in form of documentary evidence were filed in order to demonstrate that plaintiff was not recorded in the revenue records rather defendant no.1 was recorded in the revenue records, as such, the suit for injunction and cancellation of sale deed at the instance of defendant no.1 was not maintainable. Trial court while deciding the issue no.1, has recorded finding of fact that plaintiff