JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard counsel for the appellant on point of admission of second appeal and perused the record. 2. In Original Suit, the plaint case was that parties are joint owner and tenure holder of disputed agricultural property, and defendants be restrained from transferring this property unless they get their share partitioned. The defendants filed written-statement and counter-claim with averment that parties are joint tenure holders, who had entered into family arrangement and partition of the said property. Plaintiff had executed sale-deed of that portion of property which had come in share of defendant. Therefore, sale-deed executed by plaintiff no.-2 dated 22.11.2001 in favour of third persons be cancelled and plaintiffs be restrained from interfering in possession of defendants' share of this property. 3. After accepting the evidences of the parties and affording them opportunity of hearing, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly had dismissed the original suit as well as counter-claim by its judgment dated 26.2.2009. Against said judgment, plaintiff had not preferred any appeal, but defendant had preferred Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009 against the order of dismissal of counter-claim. First appellate court had afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties and dismissed the said civil appeal with finding, inter alia, that suit of plaintiff as well as counter-claim is barred by provision of Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act and, therefore, it is barred by provision of Order- VII, Rule- 11 CPC. With these findings, Civil Appeal was dismissed. Against the judgment of dismissal of counter-claim and that of Civil Appeal, the present second appeal has been preferred by defendant of the original suit. 4. learned counsel for the appellant contended that name of defendant-appellant is recorded in revenue records as tenure holders, therefore he had right to seek injunction for this property, because his ownership has not been otherwise re-determined by any revenue court. He further contended that only civil court has power to cancel the deed. Therefore his counter-claim should have been decreed. He further submitted that other several defendants, who are brothers of appellant, had admitted their mutual partition and of the disputed property being in share of appellant, therefore the judgment of lower court ignoring these facts are erroneous and this appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 5. Therefore his counter-claim should have been decreed. He further submitted that other several defendants, who are brothers of appellant, had admitted their mutual partition and of the disputed property being in share of appellant, therefore the judgment of lower court ignoring these facts are erroneous and this appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 5. It is admitted fact that appellant-respondents are recorded as joint tenure-holders and co-bhumidhars of that plot, a portion of which is disputed property. It is also admitted fact that no formal partition has been made by revenue court. Since the disputed property is agricultural land and relief sought by plaint regarding cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction can be granted to plaintiff appellant only when he has been declared or recognized exclusive owner of said land. This is well within jurisdiction of revenue court to declare the co-tenure holder to be the owner of any portion of formally undivided agricultural land. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate or formally recognize the plaintiff to be the exclusive owner or exclusive owner or bhumidhars of any particular portion of agricultural plot that has not been formally partitioned. Therefore the lower court had rightly held that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed. 6. Although suit for permanent injunction is in ordinary course is maintainable in civil court but in present matter before granting such relief it has to recognized and declared that the plaintiff-appellant is the exclusive bhumidhar of that particular portion of plot which has not been formally partitioned. Likewise plaintiff's relief of cancellation of sale deed can be granted only when it is recognized and declared that he is exclusive owner and bhumidhar of that portion of agricultural land which is a port of been undivided disputed plot. Thus pith and substance of the matter is adjudication of exclusive ownership of plaintiff-appellant over disputed portion of agricultural land, which is recorded in name of several other co-tenure holders including appellant. In these circumstances, the main relief sought by plaintiff-appellant is for declaration of exclusive ownership of appellant of agricultural land which is recorded in revenue record in name of several other co-tenure holders, and in such circumstances relief sought for permanent injunction or cancellation of sale deed is only ancillary relief. The main relief sought in plaint in form of declaration of exclusive bhumidhari right can be granted by revenue court only. The main relief sought in plaint in form of declaration of exclusive bhumidhari right can be granted by revenue court only. Therefore this finding of lower court is correct that suit is barred by Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. This is simple question of law and not substantial question of law. All other factual points of the case are admitted between the parties, and no substantial question of law arises in this matter in the light of above facts. Therefore, no error or irregularity is found in judgment of trial court as well as first appellate court. None of the contention of the counsel for the appellant is sustainable. 7. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed.