JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage. 2. This is one of the defendants’ Second appeal arising out of O.S. No. 88 of 2000. The suit was decreed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Kannauj on 10.2.2009. Against the said decree appellant/defendant No. 4 filed Civil appeal No. 17 of 2009 which was dismissed on 24.4.2009 by District Judge Kannauj, hence, this Second appeal. 3. Defendant respondent No. 5 Rampal was Bhumidhar of agricultural plot No. 1522 area 0.5 acre. Rampal sold 335 sq. meter specific portion of the said plot to the plaintiff respondent No. 1 through sale-deed dated 13.8.1990 and, thereafter, adjoining portion admeasuring 117 sq. meter was also sold on 10.12.1991 by him to the plaintiff (total area 452 sq. meter). Thereafter, through sale-deed dated 29.6.1994 Ram Pal sold the entire plot to defendant No. 4/appellant Smt. Tara Begum. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were husband and sons of Defendant No. 4. Relief claimed in the suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the area of 452 sq. meter of plot No. 1522. The earlier number of the plot was 688/1. During consolidation it was changed to 1522 area 0.56 acre. Defendants 1 to 4 pleaded that Rampal never executed any sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff and it appeared that some other person impersonated as Ram Pal. Defendants 1 to 4 also pleaded possession of appellant defendant No. 4. Rampal the seller appeared as witness of the plaintiff. 4. The Courts below found that even though in the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff plot number was not mentioned, however, boundaries were mentioned and from the boundaries it was quite clear that both the sold portion were situate in plot No. 1522. The defendant appellant did not file the original sale-deed which was executed in her favour, she only filed photo state copy of the same. The Courts below held that subsequent sale-deed was confined to that portion of plot No. 1522 of which the seller Rampal was bhoomidhar in possession at that time (i.e. excepting the area already sold by him to the plaintiff). 5. The Courts below held that subsequent sale-deed was confined to that portion of plot No. 1522 of which the seller Rampal was bhoomidhar in possession at that time (i.e. excepting the area already sold by him to the plaintiff). 5. Before the lower appellate Court two new points were raised, one was regarding jurisdiction and the other was that the sale-deeds in favour of plaintiffs were illegal as consolidation was going on at that time and no permission of S.O.C. had been sought in accordance with Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act as it stood at that time. However, no evidence was brought on record to the effect that when consolidation started by issuance of notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act and when it concluded by issuance of notificatin under Sectioon 52 of the Act. Moreover, the provision requiring permission had been deleted in February 1991 by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1991 hence the said provision could not apply to the Second sale-deed of the plaintiff. As far as first sale-deed is concerned the lower appellate Court very rightly held that unless it was brought on record that at that time consolidation was going on, the plea could not be considered and that such plea should have been raised before the trial Court supported by the evidence regarding continuance of consolidation on 13.8.1990. 6. As far as jurisdiction of Civil Court is concerned the contention of the appellant was that suit being for possession of agricultural land it was cognizable only before the revenue Court and not civil Court. This plea was rightly rejected by the lower appellate Court. Firstly, this point ought to have been raised before the trial Court and as it was not raised there, hence, it could not for the first time be raised before the lower appellate Court. Section 331(1A) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act mandates that question of jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity latest by the date on which issues are framed. Section 331(1A) of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act mandates that question of jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity latest by the date on which issues are framed. Section 331(1A) is quoted below: 331-A. Procedure when plea of land being used for agricultural purposes is raised in any suit.—(1) If in any suit, relating to land held by a bhumidhar, instituted in any Court the question arises or is raised whether the land in question is or is not used for purposes connected with agriculture; horticulture or animal husbandry, which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, and a declaration has not been made in respect of such land under Section 143 or 144 the Court shall frame an issue on the question and send the record to the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division for the decision of that issue only: Provided that where the suit has been instituted in the Court of Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division, it shall proceed to decide the question in accordance with the provisions of Section 143 or 144, as the case may be. 7. In the instant case defendant appellant also cold not show that trial of suit by civil Court resulted in any failure of justice. Moreover, by virtue of Section 331- A it is provided that if plea of land being used for agricultural purposes or not is raised in suit before the civil Court, civil Court can remit issue to the S.D.O. concerned. In the instant case through both the sale-deeds plaintiff purchased small part of the property (452 sq. meter) and for heavy sale consideration which meant that the land had abadi or commercial potential and it was purchased for constructing house by the plaintiff. In case such a plea had been raised before the trial Court, trial Court could remit the issue to the S.D.O. 8. Accordingly, I do not find least error in the impugned findings. The questions of law have rightly been decided. The fact that sale-deeds in favour of plaintiff were in fact executed by Rampal has been found proved by the Courts below. Rampal himself supported the said fact. There is no error in the said finding also which is basically finding of fact. 9. The questions of law have rightly been decided. The fact that sale-deeds in favour of plaintiff were in fact executed by Rampal has been found proved by the Courts below. Rampal himself supported the said fact. There is no error in the said finding also which is basically finding of fact. 9. It was also argued by learned counsel for the appellant that as plaintiff was not recorded tenure holder hence she could not file suit for injunction in civil Court. This plea was not raised before the trial Court. Moreover as Rampal had executed two sale-deeds in favour of plaintiff which he himself supported hence absolutely no question of declaration of title was involved. 10. Accordingly, there is no error in the impugned judgment. Second appeal, is therefore, dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. ——————