Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.:- Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage. Both these second appeals arise out of common judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and lower appellate court. The trial court passed the decrees in O.S. No.1045 of 1998 ( hereinafter refereed to as ''first suit') and O.S. No.151 of 1999 ( hereinafter referred to as ''second suit'). First suit was filed by the present appellant against Lakshmi and Bhola Nath, respondents in Second Appeal No.1139 of 2011. Second suit was filed by Lakshmi Devi, respondent No.1 in the Second Appeal No.1139 of 2011 and sole respondent in Second Appeal No.1138 of 2011 against appellant Vijay Bahadur. The first suit was filed by plaintiff for cancellation of agreement for sale dated 09.08.1990 and consequent sale deed dated 30.06.1993/02.07.1993 executed pursuant to the agreement and for injunction. The second suit was filed by Smt. Lakshmi Devi on the basis of the same sale deed which was challenged through first suit pertaining to old Plots No.495 and 516/2 afterwards renumbered as 800 for possession and for mesne profit. Civil Judge Junior Division Varanasi decided both the suits through judgment and decree dated 22.05.2006. First suit was dismissed, second suit was decreed and defendant in the said suit ( present appellant) was directed to deliver possession to plaintiff of the said suit i.e. Smt. Lakshmi Devi. Damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per month were also awarded. Against the said judgment and decree present appellant filed two appeals i.e. Civil Appeals No.28 & 29, both of 2006. A.D.J. Court No.11, Varanasi through judgment and decree dated 23.09.2011 dismissed both the appeals hence these second appeals. The present appellant took up a very fantastic case. In the agreement total sale consideration was shown to be Rs.80,000/- and in the sale deed to be Rs.50,000/-. However according to the appellant real sale consideration was Rs.2,50,000/- and in order to avoid payment of adequate stamp duty on the sale deed sale consideration was shown to be only Rs.50,000/-. Obviously Smt. Lakshmi Devi in whose favour sale deed was executed denied the said allegation and asserted that agreed as well as actual sale consideration was Rs.50,000/- truthfully shown in the sale deed. What appellant asserted was a pure fraud upon the State exchequer. Obviously Smt. Lakshmi Devi in whose favour sale deed was executed denied the said allegation and asserted that agreed as well as actual sale consideration was Rs.50,000/- truthfully shown in the sale deed. What appellant asserted was a pure fraud upon the State exchequer. No person can be heard to say that he committed a fraud and he must be given benefit thereof. Moreover, no evidence against the contents of a sale deed ( in the instant case sale consideration shown in the sale deed) is admissible in view of Sections 91 & 92 of Indian Evidence Act. Total area of the sold property is 1620 square feet i.e. 180 square yards, which is having 5 rooms, verandah etc. Agreement was for Rs.80,000/- for a larger part, however sale deed was executed for Rs.50,000/- for a smaller part containing two rooms. According to the respondent she constructed three rooms after purchasing the property. Moreover both the courts below after perusal of evidence found that agreed sale consideration was only Rs.50,000/-. Before the lower appellate court it was also argued by the appellant that second suit was not maintainable before civil court as suit for possession of agricultural land can be filed only before revenue court and by virtue of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, jurisdiction of civil court was barred. In this regard lower appellate court held that as this point was not raised before the trial court hence by virtue of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which mandates that objection to jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity before the court of first instance it could not be raised before lower appellate court. The lower appellate court further held and very rightly that in case such an objection had been raised before the trial court then under Section 331-A, issue might have been remitted to the revenue court for deciding as to whether land in dispute continued to be agricultural land or not. In the instant case the property was purchased for abadi purposes and was situate in abadi area even though in the revenue record it continued to be recorded as agricultural land. Plea of bar of Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was also raised, which prohibited transfer of fragment. However the said section has been deleted w.e.f. August, 2004. In the instant case the property was purchased for abadi purposes and was situate in abadi area even though in the revenue record it continued to be recorded as agricultural land. Plea of bar of Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was also raised, which prohibited transfer of fragment. However the said section has been deleted w.e.f. August, 2004. Moreover such a plea could not be raised by the appellant who himself transferred part of the land. Some authorities have been cited by learned counsel for the appellant regarding jurisdiction, however in view of the fact that Section 331 itself mandates that question of jurisdiction should have been raised before the trial court and in the instant case the land in dispute is not being used for agricultural purpose. This plea could not be considered by the lower appellate court for the first time. Property in dispute is agricultural land only in technical sense as in the revenue records it continues to be recorded as agricultural land. Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in these second appeals hence they are dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C. By U.P.Z.A. & L.R. ( Special Provisions) Act, 2010 which received assent of the Governor on 15.02.2010 time to get sale deeds hit by Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act validated has been extended for two years i.e. uptil 15.02.2012. Respondent if so advised may take benefit of the said Act.