JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dated 9-9-1980 in Appeal No. 114 of 1977-78. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Shiv Rajsingh filed a suit against. Than Singh and others alleging that the names of defendants were wrongly recorded against plots No. 1373-A and 1373-B ; that the name of Smt. Vidya Devi, widow of Maharaj Singh was recorded over the plots expunging the name of the defendants that Maharaj Singh, his brother, was the tenure-holder of the land in suit, that after his death the name of Smt. Vidya Devi was recorded during consolidation proceedings but Smt. Vidya Devi had got no right to transfer the land, that even thereafter on 13-1-1968 Smt. Vidya Devi transferred the land in favour of the defendant, that a suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed in the civil court and the sale deed was cancelled on 13-1-1978. The suit was contested by Badan Singh and others alleging that Smt. Vidya Devi had a right to sell the land. The suit of the plaintiff was barred by the trial Court. An appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who allowed the appeal on 9-9-1980. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly held that Shiv Raj Singh, plaintiff, has got no right to file the suit, that Shiv Raj Singh was cultivatory possession of the land and he had a right to file the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was no cause of action to file the suit by Shiv Raj Singh, that the suit could have been filed by Smt. Vidya Devi and that Shiv Raj Singh had no right to file a suit for declaration of the rights of Smt. Vidya Devi. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner found that Shiv Raj Singh claimed no rights for himself and that he had no rights to file a suit on behalf of Smt. Vidya Devi para 8 of the Revenue Court Manual reads as under :- "8. (a) When a plaint is received and before the defendant or the opposite party is summoned the following points shall be carefully observed . (a) When a plaint is received and before the defendant or the opposite party is summoned the following points shall be carefully observed . - (1) Whether it is properly stamped. (2) Whether the facts stated, if approved or admitted, disclose a cause of action. (3) Whether the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any petive rule of law ; (4) Whether the plaint is so drawn up as to dispose finally of the matter in dispute and prevent further litigation (5) Whether the parties are all on the record and properly arranged. (6) Whether the plaint contains superfluous matters or is otherwise prolix ; and (7) Whether the provisions of Rules 9, 14, 15 and 17 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have been duly observed. from the above it is evident that the plaint must disclose a cause of action. In the instant proceedings Shiv Raj Singh has not shown any cause of action for which he had filed the plaint before the revenue court. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the lower appellate court. 6. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.