JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants on admission of second appeal and perused the records. 2. Plaintiff-appellants had filed Original Suit No. 1683/1988 with averment that disputed property, which is agricultural in nature, is ancestral property of the Joint Hindu Family of the parties. But due to overt acts of the defendants, it was been recorded in revenue records in the name of defendants only. Being coparcener plaintiffs have co-parcenary and co-bhumidhari rights and are owner of 1/8th share of this property, therefore they had filed suit for partition and also for permanent injunction against defendants praying relief for not interfering in their possession of 1/8th share of disputed property. 3. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.25, Deoria had dismissed the Original Suit No. 1683/1988 by its judgment dated 11.5.2009, in which finding was given that plaintiffs had failed to prove their joint ownership. Trial Court had also given finding that since disputed property is recorded in revenue records in the name of defendants, and plaintiffs have also filed suit in revenue Court, therefore their suit is not maintainable. 4. Against the judgment of trial Court, Civil Appeal No. 94/2009 was preferred by plaintiffs, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 17.2.2016 of Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Deoria. In this judgment, first appellate Court had confirmed the findings of trial Court and held that dispute relates to title of agricultural bhumidhari property, for which plaintiffs had already instituted suit in revenue Court and they have failed to prove their joint possession in disputed property, and since dispute relates to ownership of agricultural property, therefore, their suit is not maintainable. 5. Against the judgment of trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs of the original suit. 6. During arguments the learned counsel for the appellants challenged the entries of revenue records and submitted that defendant No. 1 Devata was Lekhpal, who had forged the revenue entries. He further submitted that plot No. 1088 was ancestral property, therefore the plaintiff-appellants have co-parcenary right in it, and are co-bhumidhars of it. Therefore, judgments of lower Courts are erroneous. 6. During arguments the learned counsel for the appellants challenged the entries of revenue records and submitted that defendant No. 1 Devata was Lekhpal, who had forged the revenue entries. He further submitted that plot No. 1088 was ancestral property, therefore the plaintiff-appellants have co-parcenary right in it, and are co-bhumidhars of it. Therefore, judgments of lower Courts are erroneous. He had alternative argument was that if it is accepted that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter, then findings of the two lower Courts regarding absence of right of appellants in disputed property is also without jurisdiction. 7. Admittedly, the disputed property involved in the suit, for which relief of partition was sought, is agricultural in nature. It is settled legal position that only revenue Court has right to decide and declare ownership of such property. The pith and substance of the dispute in question is declaration of rights and title of plaintiff as co-bhumidhar over disputed property, because without declaring and recognizing them as co-bhumidhar of this property, their suit cannot be decreed. Therefore, admittedly the original suit is barred by Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide such matter. Therefore, there is no error or illegality in finding of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the real dispute between the parties in this matter. Therefore, both the lower Courts had rightly dismissed the suit and appeal of plaintiff-appellants, and and for the same reason this second appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 8. But I am in agreement with this contention of learned counsel for the appellants that when lower Courts had no jurisdiction to determine the rights of parties and decide the dispute between them for disputed property, then they have also no right to give any finding regarding merits of the rights of plaintiffs or defendants. 9. In Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, AIR 1965 SC 338 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “When the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint.” 10. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint.” 10. Therefore, it is held that since lower Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the rights of parties over disputed property, so any of their finding on merits of the rights of the parties will have no effect on their legal rights, and on the basis of such findings legal rights of the parties could not be adversely affected. With this finding, this second appeal is dismissed.