JUDGMENT : Chandra Prakash, J. This is a Second Appeal against tile judgment and decree, dated 24-11-1965, passed by Sri R.A. Singh, Additional Civil Judge, Deoria, dismissing the Appellant's appeal, after confirming the decree of the trial court. 2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the Plaintiffs Respondents against the Defendant Appellant oh the allegations that the Plaintiffs were the sirdars of plot No. 593 of an area of 1.11 acres and plot No. 629 of an area of .70 acres, while the Defendant Appellant was the owner of plot No. 606 of an area of .55 acres. In the settlement of 1915-16, the area of plot No. 593 was wrongly shown as .70 acres, while the area of plot No. 606 was wrongly shown as .99 acres. On the motion of the Defendants, the revenue court corrected the map according to Khasra entry which was wrong. On the basis of the above entries ordered by the revenue court which was illegal, the Defendants wanted to encroach upon the Plaintiffs' field; hence the suit for a declaration of the Plaintiffs' ownership as sirdars and for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiffs' possession. 3. The defence of the Defendants was that the corrections made by the revenue court were correct and the Plaintiffs were not the sirdars in possession of the disputed plots and the areas of the parties were correctly recorded in the Khasras. The Defendants further challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court. 4. The trial court after taking the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the disputed plots and the area of the Defendants shown in plot No. 606 was wrong. It further held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. On the above finding, the Plaintiffs' suit was decreed. 5. The Defendant filed an appeal in the lower appellate court against the judgment and decree and after hearing the parties, the lower appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the Defendant Appellant has come up in Second Appeal before me. The only contention raised before me is that the court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 7. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the Defendant Appellant has come up in Second Appeal before me. The only contention raised before me is that the court below has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 7. The only question that arises for determination in the case is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. I have come to the conclusion that the civil court has erred in assuming the jurisdiction in the case. 9. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case set up by the Plaintiffs was that the Plaintiffs were sirdars of plot No. 553 of an area of 1.11 acres and of plot No. 629 of an area of .70 acre, while the Defendant-Appellants were the sirdars of plot No. 606 only of an area of .55 acres and that the area of plot No. 606 was wrongly recorded in the revenue papers as .99 acres. The Plaintiffs, therefore, wanted a declaration of sirdari rights in the above plots and also for permanent injunction. Virtually, the suit between the parties was for a declaration of their sirdari rights to the disputed land and the adding of relief for injunction will not oust the jurisdiction of any court. 10. It was contended on behalf of the Appellants that a suit for the declaration of the Plaintiffs' bhumidhari rights or sirdari rights could be instituted in the revenue court u/s (sic) Sub-section (3) of U.P. Tenancy Act and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred. Sub-section (3) of Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act contemplates a suit by bhumidhar or sirdar for a declaration of his rights against the State Government and the Gaon Sabha. The scope of Section 229-B was considered in the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Parsottam v. Narottam 1970 AWR 312. Sub-section (3) of Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act contemplates a suit by bhumidhar or sirdar for a declaration of his rights against the State Government and the Gaon Sabha. The scope of Section 229-B was considered in the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Parsottam v. Narottam 1970 AWR 312. It has been observed as follows : To us the legal position appears to be that where a Plaintiff has a grievance against the village records which are maintained by the State Government and Gaon Sabha the suit will lie in revenue court u/s 229-B and any other person who disputes the Plaintiff's title shall also be impleaded as a Defendant but if the village records support the claim of the Plaintiff, the suit will not lie u/s 229-B but will be cognizable by a Civil Court in case the Plaintiff's right is disputed by a third person. 11. In the present case, the entries in the revenue court are not supporting the Plaintiffs. On the other hand, they are supporting the Defendant. Such a suit by virtue of the above observations was cognizable by the revenue court u/s 229-B of the Act and not by the Civil Court. 12. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed and the decrees of the courts below are set aside. The plaint will be returned for presentation before the proper court and since on merit, the Defendant Appellant failed in both the courts below, the costs will be borne by the parties throughout.