Judgment This appeal preferred under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-12-1991 passed by First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, IVth), Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 58/1983 whereby the judgment and decree dated 21-10-1983, passed by the trial court in original suit No. 265/1977 is set aside by said court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent No.1 Nathu Singh instituted a suit before the trial court (Munsif, Dehradun), seeking declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the property in suit. The property in suit could not have been sold in auction for recovery of dues from defendant No.3 Cham an Singh, defendant No.4, Phool Singh and late Inder Singh. Apermanent injunction has also been sought against the defendants restraining from them interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the property in suit. Property in suit relates to plot No. 15 measuring 0.54 acres situated in village Bhonwala Paragana Pachhwa, District Dehradwn, boundaries of which are detailed at the foot of the plaint. It is pleaded in the plaint that the property in suit originally belonged jointly to defendant No.3 Cham an Singh, defendant No.4 Phool Singh, late Inder Singh and one Girdhari Singh from whom plaintiff purchased it (but no sale deed is filed). It is further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in suit for last 21 years. Defendant No.3 Cham an Singh, defendant No.4 Phool Singh and late Inder Singh were required to repay an amount of Rs. 3,596.25 to a Co-operative Society because of which the land belonging to them in joint Khata in plot No. 357, 358 was attached and proclamation was issued for its auction but the defendants who were in collusion got sold disputed property instead of the property for which the proclamation was issued. Defendant No.2 Devendra Mehta was village Pradhan and he abused his position in getting colluded with the other defendants. It is alleged in the plaint that disputed property was fraudulently sold in December, 1974 and confirmed in June, 1977. In July, 1977, the plaintiff filed an application before the Collector for cancellation of the sale, which was rejected. After defendant No.2 purchased fraudulently, he intends to dispossess plaintiff from the property in dispute, hence suit. 4. It is alleged in the plaint that disputed property was fraudulently sold in December, 1974 and confirmed in June, 1977. In July, 1977, the plaintiff filed an application before the Collector for cancellation of the sale, which was rejected. After defendant No.2 purchased fraudulently, he intends to dispossess plaintiff from the property in dispute, hence suit. 4. Defendant No.2 contested the suit and denied the plea taken in the plaint. In the additional plea he has stated that the defendant No.3 Chaman Singh, defendant No.4 Phool Singh and late Inder Singh had taken a loan from the Co-operative society and the disputed land was mortgaged in connection with said loan. It is further pleaded that plaintiff himself had signed said papers as a guarantor. It is pleaded by the contesting defendant No.2 Devendra Mehta (present appellant) that the property in suit was purchased by him in the auction on 1012-1974, which was confirmed on 24-06-1977 and the sale certificate was finally issued to the defendant No.2. It is further pleaded that defendant No.2 is entitled to the possession of the property purchased by him. As to the plea taken in the plaint, it has been stated in the written statement that the proceedings of auction were held in accordance with the rules. It is denied that there was any collusion with anyone or that the different land was sold to the one in respect of which proclamation made. 5. State of Uttar Pradesh who was defendant No.1 before the trial court, filed its separate written statement and contested the suit. Defending sale by auction of the property in suit, it is pleaded that the plea taken in the plaint are not correct. It is pleaded that the objections of the plaintiff against the sale were considered and dismissed. It is denied that there was any collusion between the defendants. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to the possession of the property in question. In the additional pleas it has been pleaded by the defendant No.1, that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit is hit by provision of U.P. Zamindari. Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is also pleaded that the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. In the additional pleas it has been pleaded by the defendant No.1, that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit is hit by provision of U.P. Zamindari. Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is also pleaded that the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is specifically pleaded that the plot No. 15, 163 and 169 were attached on 10-05-1974 and finally auctioned on1 0-12-1974. 6. It appears that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 did not contest the suit. 7. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties framed following issues:- (i) Whether plaintiff is owner of plot No. 15 measuring 0.54 acres. (ii) Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. (iii) Whether the suit is bad for want of service of notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (iv) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled. (v) Whether the suit is barred by principle of Res judicata. 8. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court (Munsif IVth, Dehradun) dismissed the suit holding that the title in respect of agricultural property cannot be declared by the Civil Court. Since the plaintiff is not owner of the property in suit as such he has no right to get declared sale by auction in favour of defendant No.2, as void. However, on the point of notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is mentioned that the court had given permission to sue without service of notice as such the suit is not barred on that ground. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 21-10-1983 passed by the trial court (Munsif IVth, Dehradun) in suit No. 265 of 1977, plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1993 before the First Appellate Court. Learned IVth Additional District Judge, Dehradun to whom the said suit appears to have been transferred, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit holding that defendant No.1 had no right to sell the property in suit by auction. and accordingly sale by auction in favour of defendant No.2 was cancelled. The said First Appellate Court further decreed the suit for injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. and accordingly sale by auction in favour of defendant No.2 was cancelled. The said First Appellate Court further decreed the suit for injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. Hence this second appeal was filed before Allahabad High Court on 27-02-1992, where it was admitted on 28-02-1992 on the grounds mentioned at serial Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the memorandum of appeal. The said grounds which were treated by the Allahabad High Court as substantial questions of law, are as under :(i) Whether the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court, and was it barred by section 287-Aof UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950? (ii) Whether plaintiff having not made any claim under rule 285(1) framed under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for setting aside the sale, cannot maintain the present suit? (iii) Whether after the sale was confirmed under rule 285-J framed under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; its validity cannot be challenged in the Civil Court ? 9. This appeal is received by transfer to this Court under section 35 of U.P.Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000) for its disposal. ANSWER TO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW Section 287 -A of U.P. ZamindariAbolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 reads as under Section 287 -A- Payment under protest and suit for recovery - (1) Whether proceedings are taken under this Chapter against any person for the recovery of any [arrears of land revenue]. [or for the recovery of any sum of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue he may pay the amount claimed under protest to officer taking such proceedings, and upon such payment, the proceedings shall be stayed and the person against whom such proceedings were taken may sue the State Government in the Civil Court for the amount so paid, and in such suit the plaintiff may, notwithstanding any thing contained in Sect on 278 give evidence of the amount, if any, which he alleges to be due from him. (2) No protest under this section shall enable the person making the same to sue in the Civil Court, unless it is made at the time of payment in writing and signed by such person or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf. (The above section was inserted in the Act by U.P. Act No. 34 of 1974. (2) No protest under this section shall enable the person making the same to sue in the Civil Court, unless it is made at the time of payment in writing and signed by such person or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf. (The above section was inserted in the Act by U.P. Act No. 34 of 1974. The words "for the recovery of any arrear of revenue" were inserted in the section by Act No. 35 of 1976. The suit was instituted in the year 1977). 10. The above section clearly shows that if any money is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue from person, such person can challenge the recovery in the Civil Court only after depositing the amount under protest to the officer authorized to receive the amount. In the present case, recovery was to be made admittedly from defendant No.3 Chaman Singh, defendant No.4 Phool Singh and late Inder Singh and not from the plaintiff as such it cannot be said that he (plaintiff) was required to deposit the amount before challenging the recovery of the sum. What has been challenged by the present plaintiff is that property belonging to him was sold while the recovery to be made from Cham an Singh, Phool Singh and late Inder Singh. However, he failed to prove before the courts below that the land belongs to him. None of the courts below have given the finding that the property in question was Bhumidhari land of the plaintiff. What the plaintiff could show before the trial court is merely that he was recorded in VARG-9 (Class-9) in the revenue record. That entry shows that the possession of the plaintiff was that of a trespasser. It has come in the record that property in question was recorded in the name of defendant No.3 Cham an Lal, defendant No.4 Phool Singh and late Inder Singh and other tenure holders. Though the suit was not barred by section 287-A of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, but it was barred under section 331 of Zamindari abolition and land Reforms Act. Said section (S. 331) of the Act provides that no court can take cognizance of the suits with regard to which a suit is maintainable in the court mentioned in column 4 of schedule 2nd of the Act. Said section (S. 331) of the Act provides that no court can take cognizance of the suits with regard to which a suit is maintainable in the court mentioned in column 4 of schedule 2nd of the Act. In other words, the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the tenure holder, could have been maintained before the Revenue Court and not before the Civil Court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff / respondent argued that the Lower Appellate Court has not decreed the suit for declaration. It has simply declared that the auction proceedings were null and void. The argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff/ respondent is misconceived for the reason that if the plaintiff has no title, he has cause of action to challenge the auction proceedings in respect of the land owned by the defendant No. 3 Chaman Singh, defendant No.4 Phool Singh and late Inder Singh. The plaintiff/respondent cannot be allowed to get declared title under the garb of suit for injunction and declaration that the auction proceedings are void. Had it been a case of the nature where the plaintiff had a title over the property in suit, the suit for injunction and declaration that the auction proceedings are based on fraud, could have been maintained under proviso to rule 285-K of the rules framed under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Apart from this, admittedly the plaintiff/respondent failed to move an application under rule 285-1 of the rules framed under aforesaid Act within 30 days of sale and as such otherwise also the suit for injunction and declaration sought by the plaintiff/respondent was not maintainable before the Civil Court. Rule 285-1 reads as under :Rule 285-1 - (i) At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake. 11. 11. Apart from above reasons, the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave error of law by giving a finding that sale by auction in favour of the defendant No.2 Devendra Mehta (present appellant) was sham and liable to be declared void, without there being any issue framed by the trial court or by the Lower Appellate Court on the point. When there was no issue before the Lower Appellate Court there was no occasion for the defendant No.2 to adduce evidence, that what is being argued by the plaintiff was wrong on the point of alleged fraud. The trial court has rightly found that the plaintiff is a simple trespasser over the land in suit and otherwise also suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court. Accordingly all the three substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the defendants. 12. For the reasons as discussed above, the appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree dated 20-12-1991 passed by Additional District Judge IVth, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1983 is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court (Munsif IVth, Dehradun) on 21-10-1983 in suit No. 265 of 1977, dismissing the suit, is restored.