JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on point of admission of second appeal and perused the records. During hearing it was found that this matter may be decided at this stage, therefore it is accordingly decided. 2. It is admitted between the parties that plaintiff Sharda was real brother of Late Satya Narain. It is also admitted that Satya Narain was exclusive owner of disputed agricultural property. It is also admitted that the name of Sonia (defendant no.-1) was entered in family register of the village as wife of late Satya Narain, but later on this entry was struck-off. Admittedly Sonia claims herself to be the widow of Satya Narain. It is also admitted fact that defendant no.-1 Sonia had executed registered sale-deed dated 19.09.1996 of disputed agricultural property in favour of defendant no.-2 whose name has been mutated over this property in revenue records. 3. The plaintiff Sharda had filed suit for cancellation of registered sale-deed dated 19.09.1996 executed by defendant no.-1 Sonia in favour of defendant no.-2 on ground that Sonia was never married with his brother Satya Narain, and the sale-deed in question was fraudulently executed by showing defendant no.-1 as widow of Satya Narain, which is liable to be cancelled. 4. After affording opportunity of hearing, learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.-22, Deoria had decreed the suit for cancellation of aforesaid registered sale-deed. Then defendant of original suit had preferred Civil Appeal No. 103/2007, which was heard and allowed by judgment, of Additional District Judge, Court No.-2, Deoria. In this judgment, the lower appellate court had held that it is proved from perusal of revenue records that on the basis of sale-deed in question executed by defendant no.-1, the name of defendant no.-2 had been mutated in revenue record over disputed agricultural land as owner and Bhumidhar of this property. The first appellate court has also held that rights of defendant Sonia cannot be extinguish on ground of her name was struck-off from family register of the village. For decreeing the suit, the plaintiff had to get declared his legal rights over the disputed agricultural property as legal heirs of late Satya Narain. The first appellate court has also held that rights of defendant Sonia cannot be extinguish on ground of her name was struck-off from family register of the village. For decreeing the suit, the plaintiff had to get declared his legal rights over the disputed agricultural property as legal heirs of late Satya Narain. Since the name of plaintiff is nowhere entered as tenure holder of disputed agricultural property and the name of defendants are mentioned in revenue records and Bhumidhar, therefore the suit for cancellation of sale-deed is not maintainable in civil court. on basis of this finding the lower appellate court had allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 26.09.2007 of trial court and dismissed the original suit. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of first appellate court, the present appeal has been preferred by plaintiff of the original suit. 6. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant had accepted this legal and factual position that original suit cannot be decreed unless the plaintiff-appellant is declared bhumidhar of disputed agricultural land. It is also admitted that plaintiff-appellant is not recorded as tenure holder, and the name of defendants-respondents had been mutated over this property. It is also settled legal position that declaration or recognition of rights of such agricultural property can be made only after the plaintiff is declared its bhumidhar, the jurisdiction of which vests only in revenue court. 7. Accepting this legal and factual position, learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the jurisdiction to decide main relief sought in original suit is vested in revenue court and not in civil court, therefore, the original suit should have been returned under the Orders VII Rule 10, CPC, for presentation in the Court of competent jurisdiction, and such suit should have not been dismissed. Only on this points he wanted the second appeal to be admitted. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent had also admitted that the real relief sought in original suit can be granted only after declaration of bhumidhari rights of plaintiff-appellant, who is presently not recorded as tenure holder; and such declaration can be made only by the revenue court and not by civil court. But his contention was that it was not mandatory for the lower court to return the plaint. He contended that dismissal of the suit is not erroneous. 9. But his contention was that it was not mandatory for the lower court to return the plaint. He contended that dismissal of the suit is not erroneous. 9. The Order VII, Rule 10(1) CPC reads as under: - "10. Return of plaint-- (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted." 10. In the case of Azhar Hasan & others vs. District Judge, Saharanpur & others 1998 (34) A. L.R. 152 (SC), full bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has held, which is as under: - "On reading the plaint and on understanding the controversy, we get to the view that whether those persons who succeeded the recorded tenants, were rightly recorded as tenants or not, was a question determinable by the Revenue Authorities. Besides that, the sale deed which has been questioned on the basis of fraud, was not executed by the plaintiffs but by others, and they were not parties thereto so as to allege the incidence of fraud, In these circumstances, we are of the view that the plaint was rightly returned to the plaintiffs. They are even now at liberty to approach the Revenue authorities and claim deduction of time spent in these proceedings, in computing limitation for the purposes of the suit." 11. In another case of Athmanathaswami Devasthanam V. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, AIR 1965 SC 338 , the Apex Court has held which is 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." 12. The above-mentioned provisions where suit appears from statement in plaint to be barred by any law, then plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) C.P.C. In other words, if relief sought in suit is barred under any law, then plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. However, if jurisdiction to try suit is barred, then Presiding Officer is required to return plaint for presentation before appropriate Court under Order-VII, Rule-10 CPC. In this case, jurisdiction of Civil Court to try suit is barred under Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951), as such, the plaint is liable to be returned for presentation before appropriate Court under Order-VII, Rule-10 CPC. 13. In the result, appeal succeeds and is partly allowed. Accordingly the judgment dated 02.02.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Deoria, in Civil Appeal No. 103 of 2007 and the judgment passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 22, Deoria dated 26.09.2007, passed in Original Suit No. 1672 of 1997 (Sharda vs. Sonia & another), is set aside. Trial court is directed to return plaint to plaintiffs for presentation before appropriate Court, according to provisions of Order VII Rule 10(2) CPC.