Judgment - This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as C.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-05-1976, passed in civil appeal No. 35 of 1974, by the 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, whereby the decree passed by the trial court in original suit No. 183 of 1970, is set aside. Original suit No. 183 of 1970 was decreed by the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 21-02-1974. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellant instituted suit No. 183 of 1970 with the pleading that he is a recorded tenure holder as Sirdar and is in possession over plot No. 3/2, measuring 70 bighas, 4 biswas, in village Sadhunagar, for more than twelve years. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that he is cultivating said land. It is alleged that the Forest Department of State has no concern with the plot but their employees are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence the suit is filed for injunction against the defendant after serving notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. 4. Defendant/respondent contested the suit before the trial court and filed its written statement, alleging that plaintiff has no right over plot in suit. However, it is admitted that the Forest Department has no concern with the plot in suit. It is pleaded by the defendant/ respondent that the land vests in the State. Disputing the locus standi of the plaintiff, it is alleged that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief claimed. By way of amendment, it is further pleaded in the written statement that 41 Bighas of plot No.3 of Village Sadhunagar, Tehsil Sitarganj, were declared a Reserved Forest, vide notification No. 5-59/14-B dated 25-12-1955 under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act, 1927. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is tenure holder/owner of the disputed plot, as alleged? 2. Whether the suit is bad for want of valid notice under Section 80 of CPC. ? 3. Whether the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction ? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 5. Whether defendant had wrongfully interfered with the plaintiff's possession over the land in suit ? 6. 2. Whether the suit is bad for want of valid notice under Section 80 of CPC. ? 3. Whether the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction ? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 5. Whether defendant had wrongfully interfered with the plaintiff's possession over the land in suit ? 6. Whether the plot No. 3/2 is a part of land of Reserved Forest? If so, whether the defendant is estopped from taking such plea? 6. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court decreed the suit with the finding that the plaintiff is a recorded tenure holder as Sirdar over plot No. 3/2 of Village Sadhunagar. It is further held by the trial court that the suit is not bad for want of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., as the same is proved to have been served on the State before institution of the suit. It is further found by the trial court that the defendant has no right to interfere with the plaintiff's possession over the land in suit. Learned Additional Munsif, Haldwani (trial court) further found that though 41 Bighas of land was declared Reserved Forest but the same were out of the plot No. 3/1, while the plaintiff has sought relief in respect of plot No. 3/ 2 only. Issue No.3 was decided by the trial court in negative as a preliminary issue. With these findings the trial court decreed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, directing them not to interfere with the plaintiff's possession over plot in suit. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 21-02-1974, passed by Additional Munsif, Haldwani, in civil suit No. 183 of 1970, a civil appeal No. 35 of 1974, is filed by the defendant before lower appellate court. Learned 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, to whom said appeal was transferred, after hearing the parties, vide its judgment and order dated 12-05-1976, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial court on the ground that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On this, plaintiff filed this second appeal before Allahabad High Court on 08-07-1976 where it was admitted. This appeal has been received by transfer from Allahabad High Court under Section 35 of UP. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. 7. On this, plaintiff filed this second appeal before Allahabad High Court on 08-07-1976 where it was admitted. This appeal has been received by transfer from Allahabad High Court under Section 35 of UP. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. 7. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 100 of C.P.C. was amended vide Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, w.e.f. 01-02-1977. Since this appeal was filed prior to that date in the year 1976, before Allahabad High Court, as such, the said High Court admitted the appeal on 08-07-1976 without formulating any substantial question of law, which was not the requirement at that point of time. 8. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order, passed by lower appellate court, which is a short judgment running into only two pages. Lower appellate court has allowed the appeal merely on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In the written statement, there was no plea raised by the defendant that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act NO.1 of 1951), reads as under : "( 1-A) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), 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 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." This amendment was incorporated in Section 331 vide U.P. Act 30 of 1975. 9. While allowing the appeal, the learned lower appellate court, has relied the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandrika Misir and others Vs. Bhaiya Lal, Revenue Decisions, 1973 S.C. Pg. 365: 1973 Revenue Judgments Pg. 190, in which it is held by the Apex Court that even if the plea of jurisdiction is not raised by the defendant in trial court but where such court is inherently lacking in jurisdiction, the plea may be raised at any stage. Bhaiya Lal, Revenue Decisions, 1973 S.C. Pg. 365: 1973 Revenue Judgments Pg. 190, in which it is held by the Apex Court that even if the plea of jurisdiction is not raised by the defendant in trial court but where such court is inherently lacking in jurisdiction, the plea may be raised at any stage. Had there been jurisdiction lacking in the civil court in respect of suit entertained by it, this Court could not have interfered with the impugned judgment and order, passed by the lower appellate court. But the lower appellate court has taken erroneous view of law that civil court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed by the plaintiff for the reason that Assistant Collector, was competent to declare the plaintiff as tenure holder of the land in suit under UP Act No.1 of 1951. 10. Bare perusal of the plaint of civil suit No. 35 of 1974, instituted by the plaintiff, shows that there is no relief sought by the plaintiff that he be declared tenure holder of the land in suit (plot No. 3/2 of Village Sadhunagar). It was a suit for simplicitor injunction, directing to restrain the defendant from interesting with the possession of the plaintiff over said plot. Had the plaintiff not been a recorded tenure holder it would have been said that under the garb of injunction, he was in fact seeking declaration that he is a tenure holder. But it is not the case here. The plaintiff was recorded tenure holder Sirdar of the land in suit, as is evident from copy of Khatauni of the year 1377 Fasli (calendar year 1970) (Ext. 1). Not only this, the plaintiffs name was recorded in Khasra in the year 1377 Fasli (Ext. 2), showing possession of the plaintiff. Apart from this, plaintiff had further established before the trial court by filing copy of Khatauni of the year 1379 to 1381 Fasli (calendar year 1972-1974) (Ext. 6), which further shows that the plaintiff was recorded Sirdar over plot No. 3/2, measuring 70 Bighas 4 Biswas of land in Village Sadhunagar. A copy of Khasra for the year 1379 Fasli (Ext. 7) was also filed to further corroborate the continuous possession of plaintiff over the land in suit. 6), which further shows that the plaintiff was recorded Sirdar over plot No. 3/2, measuring 70 Bighas 4 Biswas of land in Village Sadhunagar. A copy of Khasra for the year 1379 Fasli (Ext. 7) was also filed to further corroborate the continuous possession of plaintiff over the land in suit. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had any intention to get his title declared from the trial court, as such, suit for injunction before the civil court was not barred under any provision of law either expressly or impliedly and was much entertainable under Section 9 of CPC. Since the declaration of title was neither directly nor indirectly involved in the suit, as such, the trial court committed no error of law in decreeing the suit. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the lower appellate court has committed manifest error of law in reversing the decree passed by the trial court. 11. This Court also feels in necessary to quote what has been stated by the defendant in para-2 of their written statement. Para 2 of the written statement of the defendant, reads as under: "2. That para 2 of the plaint is not admitted. However, it is submitted that the Forest Department has no concern with the plot in suit and the land vests in State of U.P. and the plaintiff has no locus standi in the land in suit. " In the aforesaid para, it is admitted by the defendant that it has no concern with the plot in suit (i.e. plot No. 3/2 of Village Sadhunagar). Learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the land. vests in the State of U.P., as such the plaintiff has no locus standi in respect of land in suit. No doubt, land held by a tenure holder under U.P. Zaminadari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, vests in the State. This does not mean that the tenure holder has no right or cannot protect its right by filing the suit. Learned counsel for the defendant/respondent, drew attention of this Court to the notification No. 5-59/14 B dated 25-12-1955, whereby a part of the land of plot no. 3 of Village Sadhunagar was declared a Reserved Forest land. This does not mean that the tenure holder has no right or cannot protect its right by filing the suit. Learned counsel for the defendant/respondent, drew attention of this Court to the notification No. 5-59/14 B dated 25-12-1955, whereby a part of the land of plot no. 3 of Village Sadhunagar was declared a Reserved Forest land. Perusal of the "notification filed by defendant read with the evidence on record, makes it clear that what has been declared as Reserve Forest is 41 Bighas 4 Biswas of land of plot no. 3/1 of Village Saahunagar. The plaintiff has not sought any relief in respect of plot No. 3/1. Rather his relief is confined only in respect of plot No. 3/2. Ext. A-5, filed by defendant/respondent, itself shows that Forest Settlement Officer has mentioned that land of plot No. 3/2 (i.e. land in suit) is not the forest land. As such, the trial court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 12. For the reasons, as discussed above, the appeal succeeds. The judgment and decree dated 12-05-1975, passed by First Additional District Judge, Nainital, in civil appeal No. 35 of 1974, is hereby set aside. Judgment and decree dated 21-02-1974, passed by Additional Munsif, Haldwani, in civil suit No. 183 of 1970, is restored in respect of plot No. 3/ 2 of Village Sadhunagar, Tehsil Sitarganj. No order as to costs.