Judgment This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1990, passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Nainital, whereby Appeal No. 83 of 1989, filed by defendant I appellants is dismissed and judgment and decree dated 20.09.1989, passed by Munsif, Kashipur, in Original Suit No. 86 of 1986, decreeing the suit, is affirmed. (Earlier Kashipur was part of District Nainital, now part of District Udharn Singh Nagar). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff I respondent Bhajan Singh instituted Suit No. 86 of 1986 against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in the possession of land in suit and also restraining them from demolition of water channel (NALI). The plaintiff's case is that he is Bhumidhar (a tenure holder having transferable right) of Khata No.6, measuring 6.54 acres of land in village Jagdishowala, Tehsil Kashipur. He is in possession of said land and cultivating the same. It is further pleaded in the plaint that defendants have no right over the land in suit, but on 15.05.1986, they threatened to plough the land in suit and to interfere with the water channel. Hence the suit. 4. Defendants (present appellants) contested the suit wherein it is admitted that only 1/3rd share (4.29 acres) is owned by the plaintiff as Bhumidhar in Khata NO.6. It is further pleaded in the written statement that the defendants' share over the land is 2/3rd (8.68 acres). As such the dispute relates to 2.15 acres of the total land of Khata NO.6. which is Bhumidhari land of the defendants and they are in exclusive possession of the same. As to the incident of 15.05.1986, it is alleged that the defendants never threatened to encroach upon any land of the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff Bhajan Singh and Ujagar Singh (father of the defendants Jeet Singh, Milkiat Singh and Gyan Singh) purchased land of same Khata. Ujagar Singh purchased the land of Sukha Singh and Teja Singh, who had a total share of 2/3rd over the Khata number. Bhajan Singh purchased land of same Khata number from Prakash Singh, who has 1/3rd share in it. The Khata of the parties were joint, but they were in possession in their separate shares. Ujagar Singh purchased the land of Sukha Singh and Teja Singh, who had a total share of 2/3rd over the Khata number. Bhajan Singh purchased land of same Khata number from Prakash Singh, who has 1/3rd share in it. The Khata of the parties were joint, but they were in possession in their separate shares. When consolidation proceedings started in the village, by mistake shares of plaintiff Bhajan Singh and that of Ujagar Singh (father of the defendants) were shown as half for each of the two. But the defendants challenged the order dated 17.08.1971, passed by Consolidation Officer, Kashipur, and the appellate court (Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Nainital) set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and declared 2/3rd share of Ujagar Singh (father of the defendants). The said finding of Settlement officer of Consolidation was affirmed (in Revision) by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad, and also writ petition filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. But due to the interim stay order passed by Allahabad High Court during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 662 of 1972, the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation could not be implemented on the record and the error which percolated due to the order dated 17.08.1971, passed by Consolidation Officer remained on the revenue record. The defendants have further pleaded that land of Plot No. 67/1 (before consolidation proceedings), formed part of present Khata No.6, which includes other land also. In the original Plot No. 67/1 due to some mistake the plaintiff was shown to be Bhumidhar in respect of an area of 6.44 acres, which actually includes the disputed land measuring 2.15 acres belonging to the defendants. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed following issues:(i) Whether the plaintiff is Bhumidhar (tenure holder having transferable right) of Khata NO.6 I measuring 6.54 acres of land in village Jagdishowala, Tehsil Kashipur? OR is heBhumidhar over only 4.29 acres in said Khata? (ii) Whether this Court (civil court) has any jurisdiction to try the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is under valued and court fee paid is insufficient? (iv) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 6. The trial court decided issue no. 3 in negative on 17.04.1989, as a preliminary issue. Thereafter, the trial court recorded evidence of parties and after hearing them decided all three other issues (issue no. (iii) Whether the suit is under valued and court fee paid is insufficient? (iv) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 6. The trial court decided issue no. 3 in negative on 17.04.1989, as a preliminary issue. Thereafter, the trial court recorded evidence of parties and after hearing them decided all three other issues (issue no. 1, 2 and 4) in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants directing them not to interfere over the land measuring 6.54 acres of Khata NO.6 of village Jagdishowala, in possession of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 20.09.1989, passed in Suit No. 86 of 1986, the defendants filed Appeal No. 83 of 1989, which was dismissed by IVth Additional District Judge, Nainital, vide its judgment and order dated 28.04.1990, however, while dismissing the appeal it is observed by the lower appellate court that the defendants are not barred from taking possession of 2.15 acres of land from plaintiff, of old Plot No. 67/1. The defendants filed this present appeal before Allahabad High Court on 16.08.1990, where it was admitted on 03.01.1991. However, it appears that no substantial question of law is framed by Allahabad High Court at the time of admitting this second appeal. The second appeal is received by this Court under Section 35 of U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. On 01.05.2008, this Court formulated following two substantial questions of law involved in this appeal: (i) Whether, the trial court had jurisdiction to try the suit? (ii) Whether, after findings arrived at by consolidation courts and the judgment of Allahabad High Court dismissing writ petition filed by the respondent, the trial court could not have granted the injunction? 7. Answer to substantial questions of law no. 1 and 2:- Both the courts below in the impugned judgment and orders have given a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff Bhajan Singh as well as Ujagar Singh (father of the defendants Milkiat Singh, Jeet Singh and Gyan Singh) were co-sharers in Khata No.6, which includes the old Plot No. 67/1. Dispute pertains to extent of share regarding which finding arrived at by consolidation authorities has become final. Dispute pertains to extent of share regarding which finding arrived at by consolidation authorities has become final. The perusal of the lower court record, which includes oral and documentary evidence filed by the parties establishes clearly that in the consolidation proceedings the order dated 17.08.1971 of Consolidation Officer, Kashipur, was set aside and it was held that Ujagar Singh had 2/3rd share in the Khata Number in question. Said order was passed on 24.09.1971 by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Nainital, which was affirmed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad, in Revision No. 350, under Section 48 vide his order dated 13.01.1972 (copy Ext.A-4). The Aliahabad High Court which stayed the operation of the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation vide its interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 662 of 1972, dismissed said suit on 05.09.1975 and thereby the interim stay order automatically stood vacated. Copy of said judgment and order dated 05.09.1975, passed by Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 662 of 1972 is Ext.A-2, on record. The final order passed by Allahabad High Court in the aforesaid writ petition was not challenged by any party in any court. As such the findings recorded by Settlement Officer of Consolidation affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revision filed before it stood affirmed and now on the basis of order of Consolidation Officer which has already been set aside (in appeal) by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation is of no help to the plaintiff. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court has committed grave and manifest error of law in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants (present appellants) in respect of land regarding which plaintiff had no better title as against the defendants. 8. As to the jurisdiction of the civil court, on behalf of the plaintiff 1 respondents attention of this Court is drawn to the case of Kulwant Kaur Sidhu Vs. Smt. Rahiman Sai Guddi, 2006 (2) Awe 1806*, and it is argued that since the plaintiff is one of the recorded tenure holder as such suit for injunction can be entertained by the civil court. Smt. Rahiman Sai Guddi, 2006 (2) Awe 1806*, and it is argued that since the plaintiff is one of the recorded tenure holder as such suit for injunction can be entertained by the civil court. In the aforesaid case Division Bench of this Court reiterated the settled position of law that where the suit for injunction is filed by a recorded tenure holder (in the revenue record), his suit for injunction is not for title and can be entertained by the civil court. But where the plaintiff is not a recorded tenure holder who seeks injunction and thereby under the garb of that relief, in fact, desires to get title declared from a civil court (which is the jurisdiction of revenue court) such suit cannot be maintained in the civil court. However, in the opinion of this Court, in the present case the issue is slightly different. Though the plaintiff is a recorded co-tenure holder, he is seeking injunction against another co-tenure holder and thereby desires to stall him from getting his share (declared by the consolidation court) demarcated. It is not the domain of the civil court to declare the extent of share of a party. Civil court has no jurisdiction to grant permanent injunction, which frustrates the findings of competent revenue courts. 9. For the reasons as discussed above both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the defendants / appellants. This appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. Both, the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.09.1989, passed by Munsif, Kashipur, in Suit No. 86 of 1986 and judgment and decree dated 28.04.1990, passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Nainital, in Appeal No. 83 of 1989, are hereby set aside. Suit No. 86 of 1986, instituted by the plaintiff Bhajan Singh (present respondent) is dismissed. No order as to costs.