JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. This is the defendant's second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1984 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Gonda in Civil Appeal No. 148 of 1979 whereby the Lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional Munsif, Gonda in Regular Suit No. 15 of 1974 as a result, the suit of the plaintiff-respondents which was dismissed by the Trial Court has been decreed by the Lower Appellate Court.

2. The defendant being aggrieved against the judgment of reversal has preferred the instant second appeal which was admitted by means of order dated 25.01.1985. Though, at the time of admission, the substantial question of law was not framed, however, the order of admission reads as under:

“Admit in view of the substantial question of law relating to jurisdiction of Civil Courts and Revenue Courts which has been referred to a Full Bench in Writ Petition No. 1732 of 1981. The instant appeal shall be listed after decision of the Full Bench.”

3. In view of the aforesaid, the Court required the learned counsel for the appellant to urge on the substantial questions of law involved in the instant second appeal.

4. Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the substantial questions of law involved in the instant second appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to maintain a suit for cancellation of a sale deed relating to an agricultural property. It is urged that where the plaintiff files a suit for cancellation of a sale deed relating to an agricultural property, and the plaintiff is not the recorded owner in the revenue records, then it necessarily involves declaration of title and such a declaration can only be granted by the Revenue Court. In view thereof the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is without jurisdiction and it is liable to be set aside.

5. The other issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Lower Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on surmises and conjectures and has not met with the reasons recorded by the Trial Court, hence, the power exercised by the Lower Appellate Court is not in consonance with the powers of the First Appellate Court as conferred under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. hence, the judgment and decree under challenge suffers from the procedural vice and the findings are perverse, accordingly such a judgment deserves to be set aside.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court framed the following substantial questions of law for adjudication:

“(I) Whether the suit for cancellation in respect of the agricultural property is maintainable before the Civil Court or the Revenue Court and if so its effect?

(II) Whether the powers exercised by the Lower Appellate Court in passing the judgment of reversal is in consonance with the powers of the Lower Appellate Court under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC?”

7. The Court has heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the appeal and despite due notice to the respondents, none has put in appearance, consequently, the appeal has been heard in absence of the respondents.

8. Before adverting to the substantial questions of law as framed above, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are being noticed first:

9. Initially Shiv Moorat, Bhanu Pratap and Brahmdev instituted a suit for cancellation of a sale deed dated 15.04.1971 registered on 04.08.1971 before the Sub Registrar, Tarabganj, District Gonda before the Court of Munsif, Tarabganj, Gonda and was registered as Regular Suit No. 50 of 1974. It was specifically pleaded that the property in question belonged to one Sri Baijnath Son of Badrisaran, resident of Village Pure Dadu. Baijnath was the bhumidhar of the said land and he had executed a sale deed 27.05.1975 in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 3