JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. 1. Present petition is preferred by defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3/petitioner, herein, assailing the judgment and order dated 29.4.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in OS No. 70 of 2009, Smt. Vimla Devi and others v. Charan Singh and others, whereby issue no. 5 to the effect as to whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit for cancellation of sale deed and for possession was decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs saying Civil Court has jurisdiction, as well as judgment and order dated 20.7.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Revision No. 27 of 2013, whereby revision filed by the defendants/petitioners, herein, was dismissed upholding the judgment and order of learned Trial Court on issue no. 5. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiffs i.e. respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, herein, have filed civil suit being OS No. 70 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rudrapur for seeking following reliefs: “(A) by the decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants sale deed dated 26.4.1999, which was got registered in Book No. I, Chapter 45, page 121-133 at Serial No. 1217 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar and sale deed dated 4.1.200 registered in Book No. I, Chapter, 68, page no. 241-256 at Serial No. 07 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar executed by Sri Bechen Singh, husband of defendant no. 4 and father of defendant nos. 5 & 6 may be declared void and accordingly be cancelled and information thereof may be forwarded to the Sub-Registrar. (B) A decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 to handover peaceful actual physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. (C) Such reliefs may also be granted in favour of the plaintiffs, which are just and proper in the opinion of the court.” 3. It is averred in the plaint that late Sri Paramdev Singh, father-in-law of plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff nos. (C) Such reliefs may also be granted in favour of the plaintiffs, which are just and proper in the opinion of the court.” 3. It is averred in the plaint that late Sri Paramdev Singh, father-in-law of plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3, was the sole bhumidhar in possession of the suit property; Sri Bechen Singh had absolutely no right, title or possession over the suit property, however, being nephew of Sri Paramdev Singh, Bechen Singh was managing the property as agent of Sri Paramdev Singh; Bechen Singh got his name mutated over the property in question in the revenue record by playing fraud without consent and knowledge of Sri Paramdev Singh, the sole bhumidhar of the property in question; since Bechen Singh was not the bhumidhar/owner of the property in question, therefore, he was having absolutely no right, title or authority to execute the sale deed of the suit property, however, he has illegally executed the sale deeds in question in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 and has illegally delivered the possession of the suit property in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3, therefore, sale deeds in question executed by Bechen Singh in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 be declared void and accordingly be cancelled and possession of the suit property should be directed to be handed over back to the plaintiffs. 4. Having appeared before the Trial Court, defendants took several pleas in defence including the plea that suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court was pleased to frame issue no. 5 to the effect as to whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question? 6. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court were pleased to hold that since names of the plaintiffs are recorded in the revenue record, therefore, suit for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by Bechen Singh in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 would be maintainable before the Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved, defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3/petitoners, herein, have preferred present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. 1, 2 & 3 would be maintainable before the Civil Court. Feeling aggrieved, defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3/petitoners, herein, have preferred present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Facts as narrated hereinbefore are not in dispute and present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, there is absolutely no need to call for the counter affidavit. 8. I have heard Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the defendant/petitioners and Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, herein, and have carefully perused the record. 9. Since, respondent nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 are proforma respondents, therefore, they need not to be served. 10. From the facts, as narrated hereinbefore, the crux of the plaint is that Sri Paramdev Singh, father-in-law of plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff nos. 2 & 3, was the sole bhumidhar of the property in question and Bechen Singh, husband of respondent no. 4, herein, and father of respondent nos. 5 & 6, herein, was not the owner of the property in question. However, Bechen Singh being nephew of Sri Paramdev Singh was managing the property in question on behalf of Sri Paramdev Singh. Bechen Singh by playing fraud, on the basis of fabricated, manufactured and bogus family settlement was able to get his name mutated over the suit property; Bechen Singh has executed the disputed sale deeds in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3/petitoners, herein, and has also delivered the possession in favour of the defendants/petitioners, herein, and on the date of filing of the suit, defendants/petitioners, herein were/are in possession of the disputed property. 11. Section 9 CPC, Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and Entry 24 and 34 of the Act are being reproduced hereinunder: “9. Court to try all civil suits unless barred. – The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. [Explanation I]. Court to try all civil suits unless barred. – The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. [Explanation I]. –A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of question as to religious rites or ceremonies. (Explanation II. – For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.] * * * "331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act.--(1) Except as provided by or under this Act no Court other than a Court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in Column No. 3 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application : Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suits, applications or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof. (1A) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), 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 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; (2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order or decree passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in Column No. 3 of the Schedule aforesaid; (3) An appeal shall lie from any decree or from an order passed under Section 47 or an order of the nature mentioned in Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (V of 1908) or in Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the First Schedule to that Code passed by a Court mentioned in Column No. 4 of Schedule II to this Act in proceedings mentioned in Column No. 3 thereof to the Court or authority mentioned in Column No. 5 thereof ; (4) A second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under sub-section (3) to the authority. If any, mentioned against it in Column No. 6 of the Schedule aforesaid." * * * Schedule II (Section 331) Serial No. Section Description of proceedings Court of original jurisdiction Court of First Appeal Second Appeal Xx Xx Xx Xx Xx Xx 24 209 Suit for ejectment of person occupying land without title [and damages] Assistant Collector 1st Class Do Do Xx Xx Xx Xx Xx Xx 34 [229] 229-B 229-C Suit for declaration of rights. Assistant Collector 1st Class Do Do 12. As per Section 9 CPC, civil court shall have jurisdiction over every suit of civil nature unless suit is expressly or impliedly barred by any other law. Combined reading of Section 331 read with Entry 24 and 34 of Schedule II would demonstrate that for the reliefs mentioned in Schedule II, no other court shall have jurisdiction except the revenue court mentioned therein notwithstanding anything contained in CPC. Bare reading of Serial No. 24 and 34 of Schedule II would make it clear that suit for ejectment of person, occupying the land without title, and for damages would be maintainable only before the Assistant Collector, 1st Class and if declaration of rights and title is involved, such suit shall be maintainable again in the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class under Section 229-B of the Act. 13. Let me now examine as to whether present suit is maintainable before the Civil Court or is barred by Section 331 of the Act before the Civil Court and can be filed only before the Revenue Court? 14. Undisputedly, as per the pleadings of the plaintiffs, on the date of filing the suit, plaintiffs were not in possession and possession of the suit property (agricultural land) was with the vendees i.e. defendant no. 1, 2 & 3/petitioners, herein. 14. Undisputedly, as per the pleadings of the plaintiffs, on the date of filing the suit, plaintiffs were not in possession and possession of the suit property (agricultural land) was with the vendees i.e. defendant no. 1, 2 & 3/petitioners, herein. Possession over the suit property (agricultural land) can be sought by way of filing suit before the Assistant Collector, 1st Class under Section 209 of the Act, as provided in Entry No. 24 of Schedule II of the Act and suit for possession shall not be entertained by any other court except the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class notwithstanding anything contained in CPC, as demonstrated by unambiguous, plain and simple language of Section 331 of the Act. 15. Let me now examine as to whether in the present case question of declaration of right and title of the plaintiffs is involved? In the present case, according to the plaintiffs, late Sri Paramdev Singh, father-in-law of plaintiff no. 1 and father of plaintiff nos. 2 & 3, was the sole bhumidhar of property in question and after the death of Sri Paramdev Singh, plaintiffs are the bhumidhar of the suit property and Bechen Singh, the vendor, was having absolutely no right, title or share in the suit property, however, Bechen Singh was successful in getting his name mutated in the revenue record over the suit property (agricultural land) by playing fraud on the revenue authorities on the basis of alleged fabricated, manufactured and bogus family settlement without consent and knowledge of late Sri Paramdev Singh or the plaintiffs. According to the plaint case, since Bechen Singh was having no title, right or share in the property in question, therefore, he had absolutely no right or authority or title to execute the disputed sale deeds in favour of the defendants/petitioners/vendees. 16. The crux of the plaint seems to the that sale deeds are being challenged on the principle that none can transfer title better than he himself had and entries in the revenue record was obtained by Bechen Singh by playing fraud on the revenue authorities on the basis of bogus, manufactured and fabricated family settlement. In other words, entries in the revenue record in favour of Bechen Singh are in dispute. 17. In other words, entries in the revenue record in favour of Bechen Singh are in dispute. 17. To my mind, in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiffs must file suit under Section 229-B of the Act in the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class saying late Sri Paramdev Singh and after his death plaintiffs are the sole bhumidhar of the suit property and Bechen Singh was having no title, share or right over the property in question. The moment case of the plaintiffs is accepted, obviously disputed sale deeds shall be declared void applying the principle that none can transfer the title better than he himself had, since Bechen Singh was having no title, share or right over the property. 18. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Ram and another v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge and others reported in (2001) SCC 24 has held that when plaintiff is a recorded tenure holder and is in possession of the agricultural land, he may file suit in the Civil Court for cancellation of sale deed on the ground that sale deed was the outcome of fraud or impersonation and he does not require declaration of his title to the land. Judgment in the case of Shri Ram (supra) was relied upon and affirmed in the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamla Prasad and others v. Kishna Kanta Pathak and others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 213 . 19. From the discussions made hereinabove, in the light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Ram (supra) and Kamla Prasad (supra), in my humble opinion, if the plaintiff is recorded as tenure holder in the revenue record and is in actual physical possession of the suit property (agricultural land), he may file civil suit for cancellation of sale deed and seeking permanent prohibitory injunction protecting his possession. However, if either plaintiff is not recorded as tenure holder or defendant (vendee) is in possession of the suit property (agricultural land) then suit in the garb of cancellation of sale deed shall not be filed before the Civil Court and only option left with the plaintiff would be to approach the revenue court under Section 209 read with Section 229-B of the Act claiming title and right over the property in question and possession over the suit property (agricultural land) saying sale deed executed by non-bhumidhar of the property of the plaintiff is void and same may be declared void and plaintiff may be declared bhumidhar of the property in question. 20. In view of the above, present petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Both the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are hereby quashed. Learned Trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation before the revenue court in accordance with law. 21. No order as to costs.