Judgment : This second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and decree dated 18.02.1982, passed by the then learned Civil Judge, Roorkee, in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1980, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1980, passed in original Suit No. 198 of 1972, passed by the trial court (Munsif, Roorkee). Said court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff Shanti Devi. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Shanti Devi instituted Suit No. 198 of 1972, stating that she owns the house shown by letters A, B, C, and D (in the plaint map) situated in Plot No. 91 of Village Hirna Kheri of Pargana Jwalapur. She pleaded that in the north of her plot, plot No.91/1 is under cultivation of the defendants. While plot No. 90/3 is Abadi land. In the north of plot No. 90/3 there is Abadi land No. 89/1 of the defendants. Adjacent to said plot (89/1) towards northeast there was a Rasta land (GAUHAR), which is numbered as Plot No. 89/2 in the records. Said Rasta land has been shown by letters F, G, H, K, T, O, P in the plaint map. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that she uses said Rasta land to go and cultivate the plot No. 88/2, which is shown by letters K, L, S and T in the plaint map. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants have started raising construction over the plot No. 89/2 i.e. Rasta land with intention to obstruct the pathway of the plaintiff. By amending the plaint, it has been stated that the defendants have encroached upon Plot No. 88/2 after obstructing over the pathway (i.e. Plot No. 89/2). The plaintiff has prayed in the plaint that perpetual prohibitory injunction be issued against the defendants, not to obstruct the Rasta land (Plot No. 89/2) in suit. It has been further prayed by the plaintiff that the construction if any, made by the defendants be also directed to be removed from the adjoining Plot No. 88/2. 4) The defendants contested the suit and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It has been further prayed by the plaintiff that the construction if any, made by the defendants be also directed to be removed from the adjoining Plot No. 88/2. 4) The defendants contested the suit and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It is pleaded by the defendants that plaintiff had no concern whatsoever either with plot No. 88/2 or with that of 89/2. The defendants denied that there is any Rasta land on plot No. 89/2. It is also stated by the defendants that the plaintiff was never in possession of Plot No. 88/2 as pleaded by her. In the additional written statement, it has been stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder of Gaon Sabha. It is also stated that Gauhar (Rasta land) is situated in Plot No. 54/1 and not in Plot No. 89/2. It is also pleaded that the suit is bad for non-compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The legal plea has also been taken that the suit is barred by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 5) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court, which were pressed on behalf of the parties:- i) Whether the suit is under valued and court fee paid is insufficient? ii) Whether the plaintiff has acquired right to easement over the land shown by letters C, E, F, G, H and O, T, K, I, J, G, F, Q P as shown in the plaint map? iii) Whether the disputed Rasta land is part of Plot No. 89/2 as alleged by the plaintiff? iv) Whether the defendants have encroached upon and occupied the Gauhar (Rasta land) situated in Plot No. 89/2? v) Whether Gauhar (Rasta land) is situated in Plot No. 54/1 as alleged in the written statement? vi) To what relief if any, the plaintiff is entitled? vii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Gaon Sabha of Hirna Kheri? viii) Whether the plaintiff is owner of Plot No. 88/2, if so, its effect? 6) The trial court decided issues No. 1 and 7 as preliminary issues, whereafter, evidence of the parties was recorded. vi) To what relief if any, the plaintiff is entitled? vii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Gaon Sabha of Hirna Kheri? viii) Whether the plaintiff is owner of Plot No. 88/2, if so, its effect? 6) The trial court decided issues No. 1 and 7 as preliminary issues, whereafter, evidence of the parties was recorded. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that the plaintiff has proved her case that she was cultivating Plot No. 88/2 and she has right of passage through Plot No. 89/2, and with those findings it decreed the suit. The other, issues were also decided against the defendants. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 31.03.1980, passed by the Munsif, Roorkee, in Suit No. 198 of 1972, the defendants preferred Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1980, which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Roorkee. 7) The Allahabad High Court, admitted this Appeal filed by the defendants, on 02.05.1983, without formulating any substantial questions of law (This appeal is received under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, by this Court, for its disposal. However, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are mentioned at the end of the memorandum of second appeal. Before arguments, at the stage of final hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the parties agreed that this second appeal be heard on following substantial questions of law involved in the appeal:- i) Whether on account of reason that defendants/appellants denied the correctness of the plaint map, the suit could not have been decreed by the courts below, without locating the property in dispute? ii) Whether a right of easement could be claimed as against the defendants/appellants without pleadings by the plaintiff that the land in suit was owned by them?. iii) Whether the land in suit was a public pathway, and without impleadment of Gaon Sabha the suit was not maintainable? iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable before the civil court? 8) Learned counsel for the parties first argued on the last substantial question of law (i.e. No. iv) mentioned above. iii) Whether the land in suit was a public pathway, and without impleadment of Gaon Sabha the suit was not maintainable? iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable before the civil court? 8) Learned counsel for the parties first argued on the last substantial question of law (i.e. No. iv) mentioned above. On behalf of the appellants, attention of this Court is drawn to Section 331 of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which provides that no court other than the court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule 2 of the Act, shall take cognizance of suits in respect of proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the schedule. Relying on the principle of law laid down in Chandrika Misir and another Vs. Bhaiyalal AIR 1973 Supreme Court Page 2391 it is argued that the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit in respect of an agricultural land before a civil court. 9) I have gone through the judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of Chandrika Misir (Supra) and found that the suit from which said case had arisen was filed in the year 1955, and second appeal before the High Court was of the year 1963. At that point of time there was no sub Section (1-A) added to Section 331 of The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Sub Section (1-A) of Section 331 of the Act, reads as under:- “(1-A) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (i), an objection, that a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II, or, as the case may be, a civil court, which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or, proceedings, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.” 10) The above sub Section was added in Section 331 vide U.P. Act No.4 of 1969. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff Shanti Devi in the year 1972. The written statements filed by the defendants in the present suit show that no plea of jurisdiction was raised by them. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff Shanti Devi in the year 1972. The written statements filed by the defendants in the present suit show that no plea of jurisdiction was raised by them. That being so, in view of sub Section (1-A), the appellate court in the present facts and circumstances of the case, cannot entertain the objection that the civil court had no jurisdiction in the matter. In Ram Padarath and others Vs. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur and others 1989 Revenue decision Page 21, the full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in its concluding Para has observed that the recorded tenure holder, having prima facie title in his favour can hardly be directed to approach the revenue court in respect of relief regarding which, there is no specific provision in The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Needless to say that in the present case the relief of injunction has been sought, and it has been discussed by the trial court that the plaintiff’s name figures in Khasra (Paper No. 10C Ex 1) of Plot No. 88/2, in the Fasli year 1379 (1972) as a cultivator. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the entry in the name of the plaintiff is that of an occupier without title (Class-IV). In the opinion of this Court mere said fact is not sufficient to hold that the suit is not maintainable as against the defendants, who had no better title. In the above circumstances, in the present case, suit cannot be said to be barred by law in the civil court. 11) Therefore, substantial question of law No. (iv) stands decided against the appellants (defendants). 12) On the substantial question of law No. (i), relating to location of the plot, it appears that there was no confusion as to identifiablity of the land in question. Both the courts below have discussed the evidence at length that from the evidence of the parties read with the report of the Commissioner, it is fully established that the Rasta land was situated in plot No. 89/2. The trial court had further clarified that Plot No. 54/1 mentioned by the defendants in their written statements was only corresponding old number of the same Rasta land. As such, this Court does not find any illegality in the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below. The trial court had further clarified that Plot No. 54/1 mentioned by the defendants in their written statements was only corresponding old number of the same Rasta land. As such, this Court does not find any illegality in the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below. Said substantial question of law also stands answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. 13) The next point (substantial question of law No. ii) pressed by the appellants relates to right of easement claimed by the plaintiff over the Rasta land. In this connection, it is contended on behalf of the appellants that unless there is servient heritage, the plaintiff cannot claim easementary right. No doubt, an easementary right requires servient heritage, to whom land belongs and dominant heritage, who claims his easementary right over it. But for that purpose, it is not necessary to plead that the defendants are owners of such land. The plaintiff has not claimed his ownership over the Rasta land (Plot No. 89/2) Paper No. 11C (Ex.2) is copy of Khasra of the year Fasli 1379 i.e. 1972 showing that the Plot No. 89/2 is Rasta land. Apart from this, it is relevant to mention here that both the courts below have discussed that the plaintiff’s case stood proved, not only from the evidence adduced on her behalf, but also from the admissions made by PW1 Dilla Singh examined on behalf of the defendants, who admitted that the plaintiff uses the disputed Rasta land in Plot No. 89/2 and that she used to cultivate Plot No. 88/2. As such, this substantial question of law also stands answered in favour of the plaintiff. 14) Lastly, I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, relating to no impleadment of Gaon Sabha (substantial question of law No. iii) in the matter relating to the dispute of Rasta land. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that though Gaon Sabha should have been impleaded by the plaintiff in the suit, but merely for that reason, at this stage, suit cannot be dismissed, particularly when, no relief was sought as against the Gaon Sabha by the plaintiff. Accordingly, substantial question of law on this point stands answered. 15) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that this appeal has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, substantial question of law on this point stands answered. 15) For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that this appeal has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.