JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of admission of second of appeal and perused the records. 2. Admitted case of the parties are that defendant No. 1 Moti had two sons, namely, Mohan Lal (plaintiff) and Sri Ram (father of defendant No. 2 (Algu). It is also admitted that one registered gift-deed was executed on behalf of defendant No. 1 Moti in favour of defendant No. 2 Algu on 11.5.1993 for the disputed agricultural land detailed at the foot of plaint. The plaintiff Moti had filed suit for cancellation of aforesaid registered gift-deed dated 11.5.1993. 3. In the original suit No. 1241/1994 the plaint averment was that parties belong to same family and disputed land was in joint ownership from the time of ancestors of parties. The plaintiff was born before coming into force of UPZA & LR Act, therefore being from joint family, he had 1/3rd share of disputed agricultural land since his birth. Therefore, his father Moti had no right to execute gift-deed of whole of the disputed agricultural property. The defendant No. 1 is a old person who cannot move or walk, cannot see properly and cannot hear, properly. Defendant No. 2 had taken benefit of these disabilities and got executed the disputed sale-deed from defendant No. 1 in his favour. When defendant No. 2 had objected the plaintiff from user of disputed agricultural land then plaintiff came to know about the registered gift-deed in question and filed suit for cancellation of whole gift-deed and for permanent injunction. 4. Defendant No. 1 Moti had filed written statement in original suit denying the pleadings of plaint and further pleaded that defendant No. 2 had been taking care and extending personal services to him; and on the other hand plaintiff had been maltreating him, therefore, he had executed the registered gift-deed of his disputed agricultural property in favour of his nephew defendant No. 2 out of love and affection. The plaintiff was born after coming into force of UPZA & LR Act. The plaintiff has no share in disputed property. Defendant No. 1 can walk, see and hear properly and himself performs his daily domestic work. The suit of plaintiff is based on incorrect facts and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The plaintiff was born after coming into force of UPZA & LR Act. The plaintiff has no share in disputed property. Defendant No. 1 can walk, see and hear properly and himself performs his daily domestic work. The suit of plaintiff is based on incorrect facts and is liable to be dismissed. 5. In original suit, the defendant No. 2 Algu had also filed separate written-statement by which he denied the plaint case and pleaded that it is incorrect that plaintiff was born before coming into force of UPZA & LR Act or has one 1/3rd share in disputed property. Defendant No. 1 is owner of disputed property who had executed gift-deed in question of disputed land in favour of defendant No. 2 within knowledge of plaintiff. On the basis of gift-deed the name of defendant No. 2 has been mutated over disputed land. The consolidation proceedings had been initiated in the village relating to disputed land and are now coming to an end, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. The trial Court had framed issues, accepted adduced evidences of the parties, and then Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 1, Varanasi had passed the judgment dated 24.1.2014, by which original suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, Civil Appeal No. 22/2014 (Mohan Lal v. Sri Ram and another) was preferred by plaintiff of original suit. This appeal was heard and dismissed by the judgment of Additional District judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act) Court No. 1, Varanasi on 20.11.2015. In this judgment the first appellate Court had confirmed this finding of trial Court that defendants live together and defendant No. 1 was pleased from service extended by his grand-sons defendant No. 2 and therefore had executed gift-deed in question in his favour. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, as well as the first appellate Court, present Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff of original suit. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there were evidences that plaintiff was born before the coming into force of UPZA & LR Act and that plaintiff was coparcener in the disputed property with his father Moti and brother Sri Ram; therefore, trial Court had passed erroneous judgment ignoring his coparcenery tenancy rights of disputed agricultural land. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there were evidences that plaintiff was born before the coming into force of UPZA & LR Act and that plaintiff was coparcener in the disputed property with his father Moti and brother Sri Ram; therefore, trial Court had passed erroneous judgment ignoring his coparcenery tenancy rights of disputed agricultural land. He contended that the judgment of lower Court was based on misreading of evidence and non application of mind. Since Civil Court has right to declare coparcenery rights of agricultural land also, therefore no question of bar of jurisdiction arises in this matter. He further pleaded that original suit was filed for the simple relief of cancellation of gift-deed and permanent injunction; and since there was no prayer of declaration of title of agricultural land, therefore, Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter. Therefore the appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions of appellant’s side contended that declaration or recognition of co-parcenery right of agricultural land cannot be sought in Civil Court, as only revenue Court has jurisdiction to decide this matter and grant relief. He contended that examined witnesses had proved the execution of gift-deed and no error was committed by the trial Court or the first appellate Court. Therefore, second appeal should be dismissed at this stage. 9. Admittedly, defendant No. 1 was recorded bhumidhar and tenure-holder of disputed agricultural land, whose name was recorded in revenue records. It is also admitted fact that the name of defendant No. 2 Algu was recorded over disputed property in revenue records after the execution of gift-deed in question. The plaintiff/appellant had nowhere pleaded that his name was ever recorded over any portion of disputed land. The original suit of plaintiff was based on fact that being coparcener the plaintiff (/appellant) had 1/3rd share in disputed agricultural land, therefore before granting any relief sought in plaint, this plaint case has to be proved that plaintiff/appellant is coparcener and co-sharer of disputed agricultural land. 10. The original suit of plaintiff was based on fact that being coparcener the plaintiff (/appellant) had 1/3rd share in disputed agricultural land, therefore before granting any relief sought in plaint, this plaint case has to be proved that plaintiff/appellant is coparcener and co-sharer of disputed agricultural land. 10. In Shri Ram and another v. 1st Additional District Judge and others, (2001)3 SCC 24 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “..On the analysis of the decisions cited above, we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure-holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the Civil Court for the cancellation of sale-deed having been obtained on the ground of fraud or Impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the Revenue Court, the reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure-holder is not under clout. The position would be different where a person not. being a recorded tenure-holder seeks cancellation of sale-deed by filing a suit in the Civil Court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the Revenue Court, as the sale-deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession.” 11. In present case, admittedly the plaintiff/appellant is not a recorded tenure-holder of disputed agricultural land, whereas earlier defendant No. 1 had been recorded bhumidhar of this property. After execution of gift-deed in question, the defendant No. 2 had become recorded tenure-holder of disputed property in revenue Court. Therefore granting of any relief in present matter would involve adjudication of an issue relating to coparcenery right and co-bhumidhary right of plaintiff in agricultural land. Since declaration of title and right of share of disputed agricultural land is a necessary pre-condition involved for grant of relief sought by plaintiff/appellant, therefore, as held by Apex Court in Sri Rams’ case (supra), plaintiff cannot got any relief unless his rights are already declared by the revenue Court. Pith and substance of the present dispute involves the declaration of bhumidhari rights of plaintiff/appellant, therefore the relief sought by him, even in the garb of relief of cancellation of gift-deed, cannot be granted by the Civil Court. 12. Pith and substance of the present dispute involves the declaration of bhumidhari rights of plaintiff/appellant, therefore the relief sought by him, even in the garb of relief of cancellation of gift-deed, cannot be granted by the Civil Court. 12. No specific relief of declaration of ownership of agricultural land is sought in plaint, but in essence the claim of plaintiff is that he is owner of the disputed land, whereas the claim of the defendant was that plaintiff was not owner of disputed agricultural property. So the adjudication of title of land in question was the main question involved in the suit, although it was not expressly prayed for in plaint. Therefore, in substance, since the main question involved relates to declaration of right or title, then suit would lie in revenue Court and not in Civil Court. Therefore in such jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. This provision of Section 331 is attracted when in substance main question involved relates to declaration of rights or title of agricultural property. 13. In Ram Padarath v. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur, 1989 RD 21, the Full Bench of this Court had held as Under: “It is the alleged injury or the apprehended injury or cloud on the right and title of a person by some action on the part of any other person, or interference or attempt to interfere or encroach upon the right and title of a person over a particular property by any positive or negative act or declaration etc., which give a suitor cause of action to approach a Court of law for relief or reliefs against the same. The dispute as to jurisdiction arises when more than one reliefs are claimed in an action on the same cause of action one of which can be granted by a Civil Court. The dispute as to jurisdiction arises when more than one reliefs are claimed in an action on the same cause of action one of which can be granted by a Civil Court. If the principle of real relief can be granted by the revenue Court, then the ancillary relief or the relief which flows out from the principal relief can also be granted by the revenue Court notwithstanding that —then all the reliefs can be granted by the Civil Court and if things are in reverse direction then all the relief can be granted by the Civil Court, but if the so-called main relief is redundant or mere suplusage then it is the real relief involved in the matter which may or may not have been claimed as ancillary relief will determine the jurisdiction of the Court which is to entertain a particular action. Even if a plaint or application is couched in such a language so as to oust jurisdiction of a particular Court then it is the cause of action which would determine the forum for entertaining the said action and not the so called relief claimed.” 14. On the basis of facts of the case and above discussion, it is apparent that main relief sought by plaintiff/appellant is not of cancellation of deed but of the declaration of rights and title of disputed agricultural land which a precondition for the grant of relief of cancellation of sale-deed and/or for the relief of permanent injunction sought in plaint. Therefore the pith and substance of the real dispute between the parties relate to declaration of right or title of agricultural land which is beyond jurisdiction of Civil Court, and is in jurisdiction of revenue Court. Therefore for this ground alone the claim of plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. 15. The plaintiff/appellant had sought relief of cancellation of whole of the disputed gift-deed. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although this relief of whole of the land was sought but the plaintiff is owner of only 1/3rd share of disputed land. Learned counsel could not justify the ground for cancellation of deed in question that was in in exclusive undisputed ownership and share of defendant No. 1 Moti and which was gifted to defendant No. 2. Learned counsel could not justify the ground for cancellation of deed in question that was in in exclusive undisputed ownership and share of defendant No. 1 Moti and which was gifted to defendant No. 2. On being asked about it during arguments, he avoided the question and contended that there is no evidence of execution of gift-deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2, therefore, gift-deed should be cancelled in toto. This contention is found unacceptable. During evidence PW-1 plaintiff had stated that defendant No. 2 had got executed gift-deed in question from defendant No. 1 by taking undue advantage of his physical disabilities. The plaintiff’s other witness defendant No. 2 Ram Lakhan had also stated that Moti (defendant No. 1) executed gift-deed. Even in plaint it is mentioned that by taking undue benefit of physical infirmities of defendant No. 1, the gift-deed in question was got executed by defendant No. 2 in his favour. In plaint execution of disputed gift-deed by defendant No. 1 in favour defendant No. 2 is admitted, and these facts were also admitted during evidence by plaintiff/appellant. Therefore, these facts were also admitted by defendants in their separate written statement. The original suit itself was filed accepting this fact of execution. Therefore, these admitted facts need not be proved when they were already admitted in plaint. The execution of gift-deed in question was not only admitted but it was proved by the evidence and concurrent findings of the two Courts below which are apparently correct and acceptable. 16. The only ground of dispute between the parties in this matter was as to whether gift-deed in question was liable to cancelled on the ground mentioned in the plaint. The grounds for cancellation were physical ailment, disabilities etc. of defendant No. 1 Moti, non payment of consideration, non explanation of contents of gift-deed etc. These all are questions relating to facts and are not question of law. These plaint averments could be decided on the basis of evidences, as has been done by the Courts below in present matter by concurrent finding of fact. It has been held that grounds mentioned in plaint for cancellation of gift-deed in question were not proved. The findings on these grounds are concurrent, and apparently correct and acceptable, that cannot be interfered in second appeal by reappreciation of evidences. 17. It has been held that grounds mentioned in plaint for cancellation of gift-deed in question were not proved. The findings on these grounds are concurrent, and apparently correct and acceptable, that cannot be interfered in second appeal by reappreciation of evidences. 17. Although, in judgment of first appellate Court at one place, it was mentioned that birth of plaintiff before coming into force of UPZA & LR Act was not pleaded in the plaint, which is incorrect mentioning; but this fact does not relate to main grounds of cancellation of gift-deed in question on basis of which relief cancellation of gift-deed was sought. Apart from it, as discussed and held earlier, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the main relief of declaration of title and coparcenery right of agricultural land. 18. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial Court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate Court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are well reasoned and are based upon proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court that has been affirmed by the first appellate Court to warrant interference in this appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law was involved in the case before the High Court. 19. In view of the above, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore the Second Appeal is dismissed. ———————