JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - The present appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of rent and ejectment of the defendants from the disputed land. The case of the plaintiff was that the disputed land was let out for purposes of opening a wood-stall by a written agreement. The defendants were never sought to be evicted after terminating their tenancy. 2. The defence was that the disputed land was part of plot no. 1711 and 1712 and the plaintiff was not the owner. The defendant no. 1 claimed to be the tenant of one Alla Dia, examined as D. W. 2. It was further pleaded that there was a contest between Abdul Majeed and Alla Dia before consolidation courts and Alla Dia was owner of the disputed land. It was contended that the plaintiff obtained a rent note from the defendant by practising fraud upon them. Various issues were framed by the trial court and the trial court decreed the suit holding that the land was let out for non-agricultural purposes and the defendants were the tenants of the plaintiff. 3. In appeal the decree of the court below has been reversed on the ground that the disputed land could be sirdari of the defendant. According to its findings, as no declaration under section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was obtained, the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The other points were decided in favour of the plaintiff. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I feel that the judgment of the court below has to be set aside. In case the lower appellate court was of view that the suit was not cognisable by the civil court it could not have dismissed the same. At the most he should have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. 5. In the instant case the controversy seems to be quite different. It has not been the pleading of any party that the disputed land was an agricultural land. The plaintiff came up with a case that it was a non-agricultural land and the defendants own witness D.W. 2 Alla Dia, admitted in his statement that the land has been used for abadi purposes for the last 50 years. It has not been the pleading of any party that the disputed land was an agricultural land. The plaintiff came up with a case that it was a non-agricultural land and the defendants own witness D.W. 2 Alla Dia, admitted in his statement that the land has been used for abadi purposes for the last 50 years. In absence of any issue on the point and further on the pleadings of the party it was not open to the court below to hold that the disputed land was an agricultural land. The land as defined under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is defined as under. "Land" means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming." 6. Under the circumstances the land which has been used for abadi purposes for more than 50 years was certainly not land" when Zamindari Abolition Act was enforced and consequently the provision relating to sirdari could not apply to the same. The finding of the court below that the disputed land could be sirdari of the defendant is wholly uncalled for and is beyond the pleadings and evidence in the case. Under the circumstances the finding that the court bad no jurisdiction to try the suit as the disputed property was agricultural land has to be set aside. 7. Initially I wanted to remand the case so that the lower appellate court could have applied the mind but as I find that all other questions have been thoroughly dealt with by it, there is no need to remand the case. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the court below is set aside and that passed by the trial court is restored with costs throughout.