JUDGMENT Vinod Kumar Misra, J. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 5.3.2016 and decree dated 15.3.2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2008 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. Sri Dheeri Singh (since deceased) and others), thereby allowing the civil appeal of plaintiff/respondent and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24 September 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Agra in Original Suit No. 87 of 1999. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Original Suit No. 87 of 1999 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. Shri Dheeri Singh (since deceased) and others) was filed for declaratory decree and for perpetual injunction. 4. According to the plaintiff, he was the elder son of defendant no. 1, Dheeri Singh, who was born on 10.1.1947, which is recorded in the record of the school. Defendant no. 2, Gopal singh and Defendant no. 3, Lila singh are his younger brothers, who were born in the year 1956 and 1961 respectively. Agricultural land, Khasra No. 76 area 1.9915 hectares and Khasra No. 218 area 0.067 hectares Gata No. 92 lies in Village - Baihata, Tehsil and District-Agra. Disputed property is joint Hindu property of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 (deceased). Plaintiff inherited equal share in the disputed property with defendant no. 1 and name of defendant no. 1 was recorded in the revenue papers as being head of the joint Hindu family. After abolition of zamindari plaintiff became co-bhoomidhar with half share along with defendant no. 1 and name of defendant no. 1 continued in the revenue papers. As defendant nos. 2 and 3 were born after abolition of zamindari, hence, they will not inherit the disputed property. No division took place between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and plaintiff is in possession of his half share and is cultivating his land. Disputed property is not self-acquired by defendant no. 1, so, defendant no. 1, deceased had right to transfer his half share in the disputed property. Defendant no. 1 did not have the right to transfer the half share of the plaintiff in the disputed property. Defendant no. 1 on 13.10. 1998 transferred the whole disputed land to defendant nos. Disputed property is not self-acquired by defendant no. 1, so, defendant no. 1, deceased had right to transfer his half share in the disputed property. Defendant no. 1 did not have the right to transfer the half share of the plaintiff in the disputed property. Defendant no. 1 on 13.10. 1998 transferred the whole disputed land to defendant nos. 2 and 3, while he had authority to transfer only his half share in the disputed property, hence sale deed dated 13.10.1998 is void so far as the half share of the plaintiff is concerned. It is not binding upon plaintiff. Plaintiff is co-bhoomidhar of the disputed land and is in joint possession. Plaintiff desired that the sale deed be declared void and null regarding the half share. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 filed their written statement, 99-Ka in the trial court. According to the defendants disputed land, which is agricultural land is recorded in the name of defendant no. 1 in the revenue paper and defendant no. 1 is the sole owner of the land. It is wrong to allege that name of defendant no. 1 was recorded as a 'Karta' of joint Hindu family. Plaintiff does not have any share in the disputed land. Disputed land is not the land of ancestor of the Defendant no. 1 and is not joint Hindu property. Plaintiff is not co-bhoomidhar of the disputed land and he has no share in the disputed land. Defendant no. 1 had all the right to transfer the disputed land and he had validly transferred the land to the defendant no. 2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 13.10.1998. No cause action accrued to the plaintiff. Suit is barred under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holding Act (in short C.H. Act.). 5. Learned trial court after going through the all the evidence and arguments of both the sides dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 24.9.2008. Learned trial court gave finding that sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 is a valid document and defendant no. 1 was fully competent to transfer the disputed land in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 and plaintiff had no share in the disputed land, as his name is not recorded in the revenue paper. 1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 is a valid document and defendant no. 1 was fully competent to transfer the disputed land in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 and plaintiff had no share in the disputed land, as his name is not recorded in the revenue paper. Learned trial court has also held that suit is barred by under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holding Act (in short C.H. Act.). 6. Plaintiff assailed the judgment of learned trial court by preferring a Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2008 before District Judge. The appeal was transferred to the court of Additional District and Sessions Jude, Court No.3, Agra. Learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 5.3.2016 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned trial court and decreed the plaintiffs suit and declared the sale deed dated 13.10.1998 null and void regarding the half share of the plaintiff and further directed the defendant not to interfere in the joint possession of the plaintiff in the disputed land. Learned first appellate court framed three points for determination in the appeal: (1) Whether the name of defendant no. 1 was recorded as 'Karta' of the joint Hindu family and whether plaintiff has half share in the disputed property, if yes, then its effect? (2) Whether the suit was not maintainable? (3) Relief. 7. Upon point no. 1, learned first appellate court gave finding that name of defendant no. 1 was recorded as 'Karta' of joint Hindu family and plaintiff had half share in the disputed property along with defendant no.1, as he was born before the date of vesting and disputed land was ancestral property, which came upon defendant no.1 and plaintiff from ancestor. Disputed land was land of Sir and Khudkasht. 8. Regarding point no. 2 learned first appellate court gave finding that suit was maintainable in the civil court and upon point no. 3 learned first appellate court gave finding that defendant no. 1 could transfer his half share and was not competent to transfer the half share of the plaintiff and therefore, the sale deed regarding the half share of the plaintiff was declared as null and void. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned first appellate court's finding regarding point no. 2 and point no. 1 could transfer his half share and was not competent to transfer the half share of the plaintiff and therefore, the sale deed regarding the half share of the plaintiff was declared as null and void. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned first appellate court's finding regarding point no. 2 and point no. 2 is not according to law. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that suit was barred under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A & L. R. Act, as name of defendant no. 1 recorded in the revenue paper and when plaintiff was challenging the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 then it would require declaration of rights in the agricultural land and as plaintiff's name is not recorded in the revenue paper so, in these circumstances suit would lie in the revenue court and revenue court would also adjudicate regarding the sale deed, if it is found that plaintiff has share in the disputed land. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted following case laws: (1) 1989 RD Page 21 Full Bench (Ram Padarath and others Vs. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur). (2) 2001 (92) RD 241 (Supreme Court) (Shri Ram and another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge and others). (3) AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 618 Kamla Prasad and others Vs. Krishna Kant Pathak and others. (4) 2016 (130) RD 589 Ashiq Ali Vs. Hargen and others. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that learned first appellate court did not give any finding on Section 49 of the C.H. Act. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that judgment of the learned first appellate court is according to law. So far as arguments regarding the bar of Section 49 of the C.H. Act is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent cited 1985 R.D. Page 157 (Asha Ram Vs. Ravi Dutt) in which it has been held by this Court that: "The possession of one co-tenant is possession of all and it has not come in evidence nor there was any pleading that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were also ousted nor any plea of ouster was taken, nor any plea of adverse possession had been taken by the petitioner. 1 and 2 were also ousted nor any plea of ouster was taken, nor any plea of adverse possession had been taken by the petitioner. Even during the consolidation operation if the name of only one co-tenant continued to be recorded that would not disentitle the other co-tenants' claim rights or to seek partition of the holdings even after the closure of consolidation operation after the issuance of notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It goes without saying that possession of one co-tenant is possession of all. In case the co-tenants are in possession, they need not file any suit for declaration of their co-tenancy rights. They would file suit only when their rights are violated or their interest is not protected or their share in the produce is refused by the remaining co-tenants, otherwise there is no necessity to file suit and in other words to invite litigation." 12. So far as arguments of learned counsel for the appellant about Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is concerned learned counsel for the respondents cited the following two case laws: I. 2001 (3) A.W.C. 1978 (Smt. Kalindi and another Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Deoria. II. (2014) 11 Supremce Court Cases 273 (Amar Nath Vs. Kewla Devi and another). 13. The questions involved in both the above case laws is also involved in the present appeal. 14. In the first case it has been held by this Court that: The Court has to examine what is the main relief appearing from the contents of the plaint. If it is declaration of the rights in regard to the agricultural land, it is only the revenue court who will have jurisdiction but if the main relief in the suit is for cancellation of the document, the civil court will have the jurisdiction. In the present case, there are two main questions-one is whether the gift-deed and sale-deed are voidable on the basis of the allegations contained in the plaint, namely, fraud in obtaining the deeds. The documents were not duly executed by the vendor. They did not contain his signatures and was without consideration and the second question is whether the plaintiff-respondent was born prior to the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The documents were not duly executed by the vendor. They did not contain his signatures and was without consideration and the second question is whether the plaintiff-respondent was born prior to the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. If he was born prior to the enforcement of the Act, he will have right over the sir land in question. In view of the allegations contained in the suit for the cancellation of the documents, the suit is maintainable in the civil court. 15. In the second case law it has been held that: Respondent-Defendant 1 having only half-share in ancestral property in question- She obtaining consolidation order on basis of fraud and getting her name recorded in revenue records also in relation to half share of appellant-plaintiff in said property- Civil suit filed by appellant for possession of his half -share based on his title therein, along with prayer to quash the aforesaid consolidation order- Matter involving determination of issue as to appellant's right to property in question based on inheritance from his father- Held, such a civil suit was not barred by S. 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and S. 331, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms, Act, 1950-Hence, objections raised on basis thereof, not tenable. 16. The factual aspect of the cases involved in the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant pertains to sale deed or wills executed after the abolition of zamindari. None of the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant pertains to situation in which question of inheritance of Sir and Khudkasht land under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 was involved. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the respondent have more or less similar factual aspects as in the present appeal where share of family member born before date of vesting shall be deemed to have accrued in favour of person since the date of his birth. 17. In the present case plaintiff was born before the date of vesting so he got share equivalent to defendant no. 1 in the property of Sir and Khudkasht along with his father, defendant no. 1. The plaintiff was not aggrieved with the revenue records entries, as being son when his father's name was in the revenue paper, he treated it as name of father has been recorded as 'Karta' of family. 1 in the property of Sir and Khudkasht along with his father, defendant no. 1. The plaintiff was not aggrieved with the revenue records entries, as being son when his father's name was in the revenue paper, he treated it as name of father has been recorded as 'Karta' of family. He was aggrieved only when father executed sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 of entire land including the share of plaintiff. 18. So main cause of action accrued to the plaintiff when father, defendant no. 1 executed sale deed in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 of the entire land including the share of plaintiff. In this situation suit was filed for declaration of sale deed as null and void regarding half of share of plaintiff in the land. So, the main relief in the above situation is the cancellation of sale deed and not declaration of the right in the land. Right was already statutorily acquired by the plaintiff at the moment when he was born before the date of vesting. So, in this way, finding of the learned first appellate court is according to law and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate court and no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.