Rajiv Sharma, J.;- Heard Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Adil Khan, for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Parmanand Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6. 2. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2.8.2010 passed by the opposite party No.1-District Judge, Raibareli, whereby the order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the opposite party No.2-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.16, Raibareli, has been affirmed. 3. Brief facts, giving rise to the instant writ petition, are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 not to intefere in the peaceful possession of the property described in the plaint, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 881 of 2009. Along with the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was also preferred under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that he solemnized marriage with Smt. Phoolkali, daughter of Banwari Lal. Said Phoolkali expired on 4.8.2009 but before death she remained with the petitioner as his wife and performed her marital obligations. It was also pointed out that on her death, all last rites were performed by the petitioner and as such the immovable property which has been bequated by her and is in his possession and further his name has also been mutated in the revenue records be allowed to be used in the manner he wishes. On the application for temporary injunction, notices were issued. 4. After the institution and during pendency of the aforesaid suit, opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 filed a separate suit for permanent injunction, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 906 of 2009, against the petitioner along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying therein for restraining him from interfering with their alleged possession over the same land which is in dispute in R.S.No. 88 of 2009 filed by the petitioner inter-alia on the ground that they had acquired the land in dispute under a registered Will dated 31.12.2008 executed by Smt. Phoolkali in their favour and the petitioner is trying to take forcible possession over the same. Notice was also issued and in reply thereof, the petitioner filed his objections along with the counter affidavit and denied the allegations made in the application. After considering the submissions and perusal of evidence on record, the opposite party No.2-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 16, Raibareli, vide order dated 17.3.2010, granted injunction, directing the petitioner not to change the nature of the land in suit or to alienate the same and to preserve the property till decision of the suit. 5. Against the aforesaid order dated 17.3.2010, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Raibareli, who, vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2010 upheld the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the opposite party No. 2 while granting injunction against the petitioner has failed to consider that the petitioner has already filed Regular Suit No. 881 of 2009 against the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 and during the pendency of the said suit, the proceedings of the subsequent suit i.e. Regular Suit No. 906 of 2009 filed by the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 were liable to be stayed. Further, the Courts below have failed to consider the well settled proposition of law that no injunction against a recorded tenure holder can be granted. 7. Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that admittedly, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the petitioner as bhumidhar and there is no denial of the fact that the names of the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 were not recorded in revenue records, although they are claiming their rights and title to the land in dispute pursuant to two Wills alleged to have been executed by Smt. Phoolkali in their favour, bequeathing her entire movable and immovable properties. Thus, the suit filed by the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 for permanent injunction was barred by Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, which provides the declaration of the title to the property in dispute and as such, the suit filed by the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 was not maintainable. 8. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Khan submits that the petitioner is still in possession. 3 to 6 was not maintainable. 8. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Khan submits that the petitioner is still in possession. He submits that in paras 8, 25, 26 and 30 of the objections/counter affidavit filed by the petitioner, specific pleas about the bar of Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure were raised but the Court below, without considering these pleas, granted injunction against the petitioner, which vitiates in law. 10. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Ram and another Versus Ist Additional District Judge & Others reported in 2001 (3) SCC 24 , Mr. Khan submits that where a recorded tenure holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court because in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession. 11. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner, Mr. Parmanand Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6, contended that the impugned orders have been passed after considering all the attending circumstances and there is no legal infirmity in the orders. It is incorrect to say that the petitioner is in possession over the land in question, whereas the fact is that answering respondents are in possession since long. The law comes to the aid of a person, who is in peaceful and settled possession. It has also been asserted that by getting the mutation fraudulently in his favour in the revenue record, it does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. The law comes to the aid of a person, who is in peaceful and settled possession. It has also been asserted that by getting the mutation fraudulently in his favour in the revenue record, it does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The answering respondents are having a valid and genuine Will in their favour executed by Late Phoolkali and as such they are the lawful owner of the property in question. 12. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the courts below rightly passed the order directing the petitioner not to change the structure of the property and further restrained him from alienating the property in favour of third party but the trial court fell into error in not recording any finding in respect of the plea raised by the petitioner regarding applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Similar mistake has been committed by the Appellate Court. Section 10 provides that no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially is involved in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where the said suit is pending. 13. Accordingly, both the orders dated 2.8.2010 and 17.3.2010 are hereby set-aside. The Trial Court is directed to pass fresh order and also record a finding with regard to the applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as in paragraphs 8, 25, 26 and 30 of the objections pleas in this regard have been raised by the petitioner. The Trial Court is directed to pass fresh order and also record a finding with regard to the applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as in paragraphs 8, 25, 26 and 30 of the objections pleas in this regard have been raised by the petitioner. It may be noted that against the mutation order, the respondents have approached the concerned authority and the proceedings are pending and as such to secure the ends of justice it is imperative that till passing of the fresh orders by the Trial Court, the parties to the suit are restrained from making any alterations over the property in question or creating any third party interest or transferring the same as directed by the Trial Court in the impugned order itself. 14. The writ petition stands allowed in above terms. 15. Before parting with, it may be noted that the petitioner has moved an application for recall of the order dated 23.2.2011. As the petitioner has justified the reasons for making second application during the pendency of the first application for interim relief, the order imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- upon the petitioner is hereby recalled and it shall not be given effect to. As the writ petition has finally been decided, the application for recall stands disposed of in above terms.