JUDGMENT : Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. In original suit no. 610 of 2005 plaint case in brief was that plaintiff's ancestors have been bhumidhar of disputed agricultural property, but their names were fraudulently deleted from this land in revenue records and names of defendants' third set (defendants no. 5, 6 & 7) were recorded over this property. After completion of consolidation proceedings, name of defendants' third set continued as bhumidhar in revenue records and they are unauthorizedly trying to interfere in possession of plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff had filed suit for declaration of his bhumidhari rights under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act in revenue court which was dismissed, and its appeal is pending. On the basis of these facts, plaintiff had sought relief of permanent injunction. 3. In written-statement, plaint averments were denied and, inter alia, it was pleaded that suit is barred by Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. The trial court had framed several issues on the basis of pleadings, in which issue no.-5 was to the effect as to whether the suit is barred by provisions of Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. 4. After affording opportunity of hearing, the trial court had held that in original suit filed for relief of permanent injunction, the declaration of right and title in disputed agricultural land is involved indirectly, and this main point in dispute can be decided only by revenue court because name of defendants are recorded over disputed property; therefore the suit is barred by Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. With this finding, the trial court had decided issue no.-5 in affirmative and held that suit is not maintainable, and dismissed the suit. 5. Against the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal No.11/2011 (Ram Charan v. Balchand & others) was preferred by plaintiff of the original suit. This was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 14.3.2016 by Additional District Judge, Court No.-2 Ghazipur. In this judgment, first appellate court had also held that the point in dispute in this matter is as to whether the name of defendants were improperly mutated over disputed land or not, and this can be decided only by revenue court. This was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 14.3.2016 by Additional District Judge, Court No.-2 Ghazipur. In this judgment, first appellate court had also held that the point in dispute in this matter is as to whether the name of defendants were improperly mutated over disputed land or not, and this can be decided only by revenue court. First appellate court had held that title follows the possession, and original suit has been filed on the basis of title, therefore the matter relating to title of disputed agricultural land can be decided only revenue court and suit is barred by Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. With this finding, first appellate court had confirmed the finding of trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Against the judgments of trial court as well as the first appellate court, present second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff of the original suit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the name of ancestor of plaintiff was rightly recorded before consolidation proceeding over disputed agricultural land, but said name was fraudulently removed during consolidation proceedings and name of defendants were mutated. He submitted that plaintiff's father was illiterate person and could not raise objections during consolidation proceedings. He submitted that when plaintiff came to know about the incorrect entry in revenue record regarding name of defendants, then he had filed suit for declaration of its title before revenue court under Section 229 B of UPZA & LR Act, which is pending. Therefore, he is entitled for relief of permanent injunction if plaint case is proved regarding his ownership and possession. So appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 8. This contention was refuted by learned counsel for the respondents who submitted that suit under Section 229-B of UPZA & LR Act was rightly decided by revenue court and its appeal before court of Additional Commissioner has also been dismissed and that order would become final; therefore it has been declared by the revenue court that plaintiff is not owner or bhumidhar of disputed agricultural property. In these circumstances, his suit cannot be decreed on the basis of bhumidhari rights over disputed land. So there is no error in judgment of lower courts and appeal should be dismissed. 9. In these circumstances, his suit cannot be decreed on the basis of bhumidhari rights over disputed land. So there is no error in judgment of lower courts and appeal should be dismissed. 9. This is specific plaint case that plaintiff possesses bhumidhari right of disputed agricultural property on the basis of which, he has filed suit for permanent injunction. His suit can be decreed only if bhumidhari rights is recognized or declared by court. The lower courts had rightly held that civil court has no jurisdiction to decide, declare or recognize the bhumidhari rights of plaintiff/appellant over disputed land, and such jurisdiction lies with the revenue court only, because defendants are already recorded as bhumidhar. This finding of first appellate court is also correct that in such matter injunction involves declaration. In present matter declaration or recognition of bhumidhari right is directly involved for the relief claimed in plaint, because plaintiff had specifically pleaded himself as having bhumidhari rights. 10. The suit of plaintiff-appellant has been based on claim of his ownership and bhumidhari rights over disputed agricultural land, for which the plea of bar of suit under Section 331 UPZA & LR Act was taken by defendants. Section-331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 reads as under : "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, (5 of 1908) take cognizance of any 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 suit, application or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof; Explanation - If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted." 11. This section provides that no court other than court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in C.P.C., take cognizance of any suit, application or proceedings, mentioned in Column 3 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceedings based on cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. In Schedule II of this Act serial number-34 of Column-3 deals with 'Suit for declaration of rights'; and in front of it in column-4 the name of court of original jurisdiction is given as 'Assistant Collector, 1st Class'. 12. The main ground taken for permanent injunction in plaint is that plaintiff is owner of disputed property. Admittedly it was only defendant whose name is recorded over disputed land as bhumidhar. The plaintiff's suit cannot be decreed unless he is declared or recognized as bhumidhar of the disputed property. The pith and substance of the disputed is exercise of bhumidhari rights by appellant over disputed property. 13. In fact for an adjudication of bhumidhari right is an issue relating to jurisdiction. The averments contained in the plaint have to be taken in their entirety. The effort of the court has to be to gather the pith and substance of what is alleged in the plaint. The pith and substance of the plaint in the instant case necessarily involved the adjudication of the question as to whether the plaintiff was or not the bhumidhar of the land in dispute. The plaintiff-appellant was not recorded in revenue papers and entry stood in favour of defendant, which was never challenged even during consolidation proceedings. Obviously, therefore, the plaintiff had to seek a declaration in his favour for which the proceedings are were carried out and decided against the appellant. There can be no escape therefore, from the conclusion that upon the cause of action set up in the plaint, the suit would lie for declaration in the revenue court under Section 229-B of the U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. 14. No doubt, there is no apparent relief of declaration claimed in the plaint, but that is not really material. In essence the claim of the plaintiff was that he was owners of the property, while the claim of defendants was that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property. 14. No doubt, there is no apparent relief of declaration claimed in the plaint, but that is not really material. In essence the claim of the plaintiff was that he was owners of the property, while the claim of defendants was that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property. Thus, adjudication of title was, in substance the main question involved in the suit, even though it was not expressly prayed for in the plaint. Thus, the essence of the matter in deciding whether the suit is cognizable by the civil Court or the revenue Court is whether Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is attracted to the facts of the case. If the substance, the main question involved relates to declaration of right or title, then the suit would lie in the revenue court and not in the civil court. 15. It is admitted legal position that the ownership dispute or rights relating to agricultural land can be decided only by revenue court and the jurisdiction of civil court in this regard is barred under Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. Therefore, the judgments of lower courts are found neither erroneous nor infirm, which are confirmed. 16. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial court which was confirmed by the first appellate court in first appeal, I am of the view that their judgments are well reasoned, and are based on proper appreciation of entire evidences available on record. No perversity or infirmity is found in finding recorded by the first appellate court to warrant interference through this appeal. No substantial question of law was involved before this Court. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant can be sustained. 17. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed.