R. K. MAHAJAN, J. Shri Harsukh and Shri Dull Chand are brothers. Dull Chand died during the pendency of the suit and he is now represented by wife Smt. Parwati and his sons and a daughter. They hail from Mohalla Katra Fateh Mamoor Khan, District Etawah. Harsukh was married to Smt. Kiranta Devi, on 10-5-1977 Smt. Kiranta Devi sold one acre of land in favour of Defendant-appellant Anwar Singh. The sale was challenged by way of suit by Duli Chand that he is entitled to inherit the agricultural land on the ground that Smt. Kiranta Devi was enticed by one Ram Bux of village Bharthana and case No. 244 of 1991 was registered under Section 498 IPC and the certified copy of the FIR is on record as paper No. 18-C. It appears that the accused were acquitted in appeal. 2. The plea of the plaintiffs in the suit is that the property in question was acquired on 26-7-1945 after Kiranta Devi left her husband Harsukh. Harsukh died in the year 1967. So in view of leaving her husband Har Sukh and performing marriage with Shri Ram Bux she is not entitled to inherit the property and sale in dispute dated 18-5-1977 is inoperative, ineffective and nonest. The lower court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff but the appellate court accepted the appeal holding that Smt. Kiranat Devi re-married and sale is invalid and the appellate court decreed the suit. 3. This is how the present Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30-4- 1991 passed by Shri Sattidin, Family Judge, Etawah in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1985 Smt. Parwati and others v. Smt. Kiranta Devi and another by virtue of which the judgment of the lower court dated 11-4- 1985 passed by Shri Rameshwar Singh, Munsif First, Etawah in Original Suit No. 500 of 1978 Duli Chand v. Kiranta Devi and another. At the time of admission of the present Second Appeal the following substantial questions of law numbered as 1, 3, 5 and 6 were allowed to be framed- "1. Whether the appellate court was justified to carve out a new case for the plaintiff-respondent which was neither pleaded nor proved by the plaintiff-respondents ? 2. At the time of admission of the present Second Appeal the following substantial questions of law numbered as 1, 3, 5 and 6 were allowed to be framed- "1. Whether the appellate court was justified to carve out a new case for the plaintiff-respondent which was neither pleaded nor proved by the plaintiff-respondents ? 2. Whether the appellate court was justified to ignore the mutation order passed in the year 1968 and also to ignore the plea of the plaintiff-respondent in the declaratory suit and in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr. EC. that Smt. Kiranta Devi had re-married after the death of Harsukh ? 3. Whether the appellate court was justified to hold that no ceremonies are required for remarriage and no ceremonies were performed relating to the alleged re-marriage and the trial judge has rejected the theory of remarriage on the basis of oral and documentary evidence ? 4. Whether the appellate court was justified in setting aside the findings recorded by the trial judge without dealing with those reasons which the trial judge has discussed in detail in view of law laid down in AIR 1972 SC1716?" 9. Shri N. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower appellate court has fell into an error by holding that Smt. Kiranata Devi re-married in 1941 ignoring the admission of written statement of Duli Chand in 145 Cr. PC. proceedings and also ignoring the acquittal of Ram Bus in 498 IPC proceedings. He further submitted that Duli Chand had filed a revenue suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950) for declaring of his rights regarding this land and the matter is still pending before the Board of Revenue and civil suit does not lie in view of Section 331 of Act of 1950 and has relied upon Supreme Court decision which would be referred during the discussion. He has further submitted that Harsukh died in the year 1967 and Smt. Kiranta Devi re-married Ram Bux and there is no question of divesting the property once the property has been vested and no ceremonies are required for re-marriage. He has further submitted that Harsukh died in the year 1967 and Smt. Kiranta Devi re-married Ram Bux and there is no question of divesting the property once the property has been vested and no ceremonies are required for re-marriage. He has also submitted that in para No. 6 of the written statement of Duli Chand there is a mention that Smt. Kiranta Devi has remarried after the death of Harsukh according to the custom prevalent in the society. So according to the learned counsel for the appellant the reversal of the judgment of the trial court by the appellate court is on wrong approach of appreciation of law as well as no reasonable man can take the view which the appellate court has taken. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Prakash Krishna submitted that the judgment of the appellate court is well reasoned and based upon the evidence right from 1955. He further submitted that since Smt. Kiranta Devi had left Harsukh in 1941 and bhumidhar rights were required on lease and she has no right to succeed on this ground as well as re-marriage. He further submitted that the counsel for the plaintiff has raised a question of jurisdiction and the parties have gone into trial and no prejudice has caused and the suit is saved under Section 331-Aof the Act of 1950. 6. I would first of all deal with the question of jurisdiction. There is specific plea taken in the written statement of Anwar Singh that the suit is not cognizable by Civil Court and the suit should be stayed as on the same matter another suit is pending under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950. 7. Learned counsel for the Appellant has relied upon judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported in JT 1995 (8) SC 150 Deokinandan and others v. Surajpal and others: 1996 (1) JCLR 296 (SC), in which the Honble Supreme Court observed Sections 229 and 331 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act-Title to land defence of his trial appellant specifically raised objection to the jurisdiction, the Civil Court is to go into the question of title - Lands admittedly covered by the provisions of the Act- Jurisdiction Civil Court barred-Appeal allowed. 8. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is reported in 1974 (1) SCR 290 Chandrika Misir and another v. Bhaiya Lal. 8. Another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is reported in 1974 (1) SCR 290 Chandrika Misir and another v. Bhaiya Lal. It was observed that since the Civil Court which entertained the suit suffered from an inherent lack of jurisdiction because of special provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the present appeal filed by the appellant had to be dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on this ground. 9. I would like to mention briefly the admitted fact. It is admitted that the mutation was effected in favour of Smt. Kiranta Devi. It is also fact that the matter is pending before the Board of Revenue regarding those mutation proceedings as obviously under Section 333 of Act of 1950 which deals with the power of Board to call for cases. Section 333 of Act of 1950 is quoted below with an advantage- "333. Power of Board to call for cases - The Board may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court in which no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, and if such subordinate court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board may pass such order in the case as it thinks fit. " 10. Section 333-A of the Act of 1950 deals with Reference to the Board. Section 333-A of the Act of 1950 is quoted with an advantage- "333-A. Reference to the Board - The Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any suit or proceeding referred to in Section 333 decided by any court subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding and if he is of opinion that such order should be varied, canceled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board and, the Board shall thereupon pass such orders as it thinks fit. " 11. " 11. Now I would like to deal with Section 229-B of the Act which deals with declaratory suit by person claiming to be an asami of a holding or part thereof. Section 229-B of the Act is quoted with advantage- "229-B. Declaratory suit by person claiming to be an asami of a holding or part thereof- (1) Any person claiming to be an asami of a holding or any part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person, may sue the landholder for a declaration of his rights as asami in such holding or part, as the case may be. (2) In any suit under sub-Section (1) any other person claiming to hold as asami under the land-holder shall be impleaded as defendant. (3) The provisions of sub-Sections (1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a bhumidhar with the amendment that for the word "land-holder" the words "the State Government and the Gaon Sabha are substituted therein. " 12. Section 229-C of the Act deals with suit for declaration of rights of a person claiming to be an asami. Section 229-C of the Act is quoted with advantage- "229-C - Suit for declaration of rights of a person claiming to be an asami.- A Gaon Sabha or a bhumidhar of any land may sue any person claiming to be an asami of such land for a declaration of the rights of such person. " 13. Section 331 of Act of 1950 deals with cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act. Section 331 of Act of 1950 is quoted with an advantage- "331 - Cognizance of suits etc. " 13. Section 331 of Act of 1950 deals with cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act. Section 331 of Act of 1950 is quoted with an advantage- "331 - Cognizance of suits etc. under this Act - (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II Shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in Column 3 thereof or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application: Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part there of the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suits, applications or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof. 1-A Notwithstanding anything in sub-Section (i), an objection that a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II, or, as the case may be, a civil court, which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or proceeding, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. 2. Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order or decree passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in Column 3 of the schedule aforesaid.- (3) An appeal shall lie from any decree of from an order passed under Section 47 or an order of the nature mentioned in Section 104 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) or in Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the First Schedule to that Code passed by a court mentioned in Column No. 4 of Schedule II to this Act in proceedings mentioned in Column No. 3 thereof to the court or authority mentioned in Column No. 5 thereof. (4) A second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under subsection (3), to the authority, it any, mentioned against it in Column 6 of the Schedule aforesaid. " 14. According to Schedule II, the appeal under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950 lies before the Commissioner after decision of Assistant Collector, Ist Class and second appeal lies to the High Court. Section 171 of Act of 1950 deals with General order of Succession and Section 172 deals with Succession in the case of a woman holding an interest inherited as a widow, mother, daughter etc. Section 171 of the Act of 1950 is quoted with an advantage- "171. General order of succession - Subject to the provisions of Section 169, when a bhumidhar or asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below- (a) the male lineal descendant in the line of descent in equal share per strips: Provided first that, the sons of a predeceased son how low-so-over shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the predeceased son, had he been alive: Provided secondly that, subject to the provisions of the first provise, the share of a predeceased male lineal descendant will devolve upon his widow who has not re-married, and Provided thirdly that if no male lineal descendent in male line of descent is alive the inheritance shall be governed by clause (b); (b) widow and widowed mother and widow of a pre-deceased male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, who have not re-married: Provided first that co-widows will together get one share, and Provided secondly that the widow of a nearer descendant will exclude that of a remoter one in the same branch; 15. Admittedly Harsukh has no issue so the property was to go to widow. Without giving any decision on this point regarding succession or re-marriage as this matter pertains clearly within jurisdiction of Revenue Court or whatever the Forum under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and the matter is still pending it was not advisable for the lower courts to have taken the cognizance. Without giving any decision on this point regarding succession or re-marriage as this matter pertains clearly within jurisdiction of Revenue Court or whatever the Forum under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and the matter is still pending it was not advisable for the lower courts to have taken the cognizance. The legislature has created a special forum under the special enactment and the plaintiff has chooses that forum and it is still pending. The doctrine of election to choose right remedy and lack of inherent jurisdiction debars the plaintiff to agitate the matter in the Civil Court. It is barred under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code. Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code is reproduced below- "9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred - The courts shall subject to the provisions herein contained have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. " 16. Shri Prakash Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Civil Court has jurisdiction as sale has been challenged. The argument is a pursuasive but on little probe it became unpursuasive. The source of title whether Kiranta Devi is entitled to succeed. Anwar Singhs rights and the question of re-marriage is also involved. This question is pending before the Revenue Court and declaration has been sought. Civil Court cannot give finding on the same facts indirectly what has been prohibited directly by the statute. In case the plaintiff succeeds they can agitate the matter later on if advised according to law. 17. I would also like to mention a judgment reported in 1981 All LJ 647 (Lucknow Bench) Dr. Ajodhya Prasad v. Gangotri Prasad in which it was observed that in a suit for injunction and cancellation of sale- deed, if cause of action does not stem from sale-deed. But from the other facts which are cognizable by particular forum under the Act the suit will be barred in a Civil Court. Ajodhya Prasad v. Gangotri Prasad in which it was observed that in a suit for injunction and cancellation of sale- deed, if cause of action does not stem from sale-deed. But from the other facts which are cognizable by particular forum under the Act the suit will be barred in a Civil Court. It is quoted with an advantage- "where the plaintiff alleged that he was the son of the deceased landlord and claimed declaration of his sirdari in the disputed land and instituted a suit in civil court and claimed reliefs of cancellation of sale- deed in respect of disputed land executed by his mother and for injunction, the jurisdiction of civil court would be barred as the plaintiff being a preferential heir under Section 171 and his mother being no heir, the sale-deed would not require cancellation by a civil court and in respect of cause of action of threatened invasion of plaintiff s right, relief could be given by a Revenue Court. " 18. I am of the considered view that there is no bar in Civil Court to challenge the sale on fraud, undue influence if one has become a owner under this Act or some rights have been transferred but cancellation of sale-deed on the basis of that she had no title and the matter is still pending for adjudication under Section 229-B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. There is difference between the lack of jurisdiction and irregular jurisdiction. It is not a case of irregular jurisdiction but it is a case of foundational lack of jurisdiction and Section 331-A of the Act is of not help at all. Moreover there was objection regarding jurisdiction in the written statement. 19. As a result of discussion and reasons recorded aforesaid the appeal is accepted as the suit is not cognizable by lower court and the appeal is allowed and the decrees and judgment of lower courts are set aside as they are without jurisdiction. No order as costs. Appeal allowed. .