JUDGMENT B.S. Sharma, M. - This is a revision against the order dated April 7, 1977 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dismissing the revision filed by Raghib Hussain, revisionist, against the order dated November 21, 1975 passed by the S.D.O., district Rae Bareilly in a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the courts below. 3. From the record, it appears that the plaintiff-respondents filed suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for ejectment of the defendant-revisionist from a portion of plot No. 962 situated in village Dalmau of district Rae Bareilly and claimed the relief of possession over that land as according to them the land in dispute was their Bhumidhari and the defendant-revisionist had illegally trespassed over the same. The defendant-revisionist filed another suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for declaration of his Sirdari rights in respect of the same land. Both these suits were consolidated and heard together by the trial court which on the pleadings of the parties, first proceeded to decide issue Nos. 6 and 7. These two issues were as under :- (1) Issue No. 6 - Whether the land in dispute is within the limits of town area Dalmau and whether the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act apply to it or not?; (2) Issue No. 7. - Whether the suit under Section 209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The trial court decided that the land in suit, thought located within the limits of town area Dalmau is governed by the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act this Act has been enforced in respect of the land in dispute. In regard to issue No. 7, the trial court decided that as the relief claimed is in respect of agricultural land, the suit lies within the jurisdiction of a revenue court and the trial court is competent to hear and decide it. The defendant-revisionist filed a revision before the learned Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow, who concurring with the aforesaid findings of the trial court, dismissed the revision. 4. The defendant-revisionist filed a revision before the learned Addl. Commissioner, Lucknow, who concurring with the aforesaid findings of the trial court, dismissed the revision. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the relief claimed in the plaint is that of demolition of buildings constructed by the revisionist over the land in dispute and, therefore the suit in question cannot be tried by a revenue court as the relief claimed cannot be granted by this court. In support of this argument, the learned counsel has cited a case reported in 1968 R.D. 470. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the main relief claimed in the plaint is that of declaration of the plaintiff-respondent's Bhumidhari rights in the land in dispute and restoration of possession of the land to them after ejecting the defendants-revisionist by removing the encroachment made by him. Thus the main relief claimed in the suit is that of declaration of rights in an agricultural holding and ejectment of a trespasser therefrom. Relying on the ruling quoted by the learned counsel for the revisionist, he has further argued that according to this ruling the suit is clearly cognizable by a revenue court as the land in dispute had been held to be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 6. I have carefully examined the plaints filed by the parties in the two suits referred to above. From these plaints, it is clear that the real and main controversy is that of that of declaration of Bhumidhari and Sirdari rights of the plaintiff-respondents and defendant-revisionist respectively. The learned trial court has given a verdict that the land in suit is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The fact of location of this land within the town area limits of Dalmau does not affect this position as for purposes of the said Act the land has rightly been held to be located in revenue village Dalmau. This being the position, the main relief claimed is clearly one of declaration of tenancy rights of the parties in the land in suit and the plaintiff-respondents suit is mainly for declaration of their Bhumidhari rights and for ejectment of the defendant-revisionist therefrom as a trespasser. This being the position, the main relief claimed is clearly one of declaration of tenancy rights of the parties in the land in suit and the plaintiff-respondents suit is mainly for declaration of their Bhumidhari rights and for ejectment of the defendant-revisionist therefrom as a trespasser. The mere narration of the fact that the possession of the land in suit should be restored to the plaintiff-respondents after removing the trespass by demolishing the buildings, does not change the real nature of the suit and the main relief claimed thereunder. The case cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist does not help him at all. In fact the learned Judges of the Hon'ble High Court in this case have clearly elucidated the principles which should govern the jurisdiction of civil and revenue court in suits in which the main and ancillary reliefs are claimed. The learned Judges have held that if the main relief claimed is cognizable by the revenue court only and the fact the ancillary reliefs claimed are cognizable by civil court would be immaterial for determining the proper forum for the suit. In the suit under consideration, as stated earlier, the main relief claimed is that of declaration of Bhumidhari rights of the plaintiff-respondents in the land in dispute and ejectment of the defendant-revisionist from that land. This relief is undoubtedly one coming under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as the land in dispute is an agricultural land. In view of this clear position, I find no material irregularity or illegality in the concurrent findings and judgments of the two courts below. 7. In view of what is discussed above, I am of the opinion that there is no force in the revision which is hereby dismissed with costs.