JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - The only point raised in this second appeal is that a surrender of plot No. 746 in favour of Gopi, husband of Smt. Jokhana by the latter's brother Ganga was invalid as it was not made in accordance with or under the provisions of Section 103 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, There are three objections to the entertainment of this point: (1) it was not a surrender of the entire holding in favour of Zamindar. Obviously Section 103 of the Agra Tenancy Act covered only the cases of surrender of a holding by a tenant in favour of Zamindar. The surrender pleaded in this case was a relinquishment of his rights by one brother in favour of another. Both of them were co-tenants of the land. In my view Section 103 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 has no application to the facts of the case and the surrender in question could not be said to be illegal on this account. The second objection is that Smt. Jokhana appears to have been recorded and to have come into possession of the land as the tenant Sirdar thereof after the death of Gopi. Many years must have elapsed since the surrender, as it was said to be bad for not complying with the provisions of Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, and the acquisition of Sirdari rights on the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Even thereafter the rights of Smt. Jokhana as the tenure holder of the land remained un-questioned for a long number of years. The suit giving rise to the second appeal was a suit for injunction. Surely her title to the land as a tenure holder thereof could not be challenged in this way. If the plaintiff's claim that he was in possession and Smt. Jokhana was not the tenure holder on any such grounds raised here, he ought to have filed a suit for declaration before the revenue court and in case he was out of possession, he could have claimed possession also before the revenue court. A suit for injunction could not be used as a cloak for a declaration of rights of a tenure-holder to agricultural land. 2. In the result, I find no merit in this second appeal and dismiss it with costs.