JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard counsel holding brief of Shri O.N. Mishra, who appears for the appellant and Shri Madan Mohan Srivastava for the respondents 1 and 2. This plaintiffs' second appeal arises out of a suit for partition and injunction. 2. The suit was filed with regard to land shown by letters A, B, C, D in the plaint map. The categorical case of the plaintiff was that the entire property of the parties had been partitioned earlier in time except the land shown by letters A, B, C, D. 3. The oral testimony of the plaintiff himself was to the effect that the land in question was used for cultivating vegetables and that he had seen in this state since the age of his discretion. Some trees also existed thereon. 4. The case of the defendants, on the contrary, was that it was their sole acquisition. This plea was raised relying upon an unregistered sale deed. It was also the case of the defendants that the property in question belongs to the Gaon Sabha. 5. The trial Court found that the title of the parties to the land in question was not proved. Since it was admitted case of the plaintiff that a prior partition had taken place, it was necessarily to be assumed that the entire property of the parties had been partitioned in its totality. It was also observed by the two Courts below that there appeared no justification why this land, which was admittedly situated adjacent to the house of the parties would not have been partitioned, especially when it was vacant land. 6. The trial Court also believed the case of the defendants and held that the land in question belonged to the Gaon Sabha. 7. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court has been affirmed in appeal filed by the appellant. 8. Apart from the contention of counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial Court has culled out new case by holding that the property in suit belongs to the Gaon Sabha, the only other submission made is that the matter should be adjourned to enable him to file entire oral evidence of the parties so that the same can be considered by this Court. 9. 9. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the Courts below have dismissed the suit also on the ground that the plaintiff has not been able to establish his title to the property in question. It is also submitted that the property has been held to belong to the Gaon Sabha. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The finding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his title to the suit property has been returned upon a presumption in accordance with a decision of the Apex Court, in view of the plaintiff's own case that the joint property had been partitioned earlier in time, except the land in suit. The presumption drawn, being in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court, cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner. 12. In so far as the finding that the property in question belongs to the Gaon Sabha is concerned, it has been returned on the basis of the admitted factual position that the land in question was being cultivated on the spot. It was, also the case of the defendants that the property belongs to the Gaon Sabha. 13. This finding of title, in my considered opinion, could not have been recorded by the Civil Court. It is settled law that title to agricultural land can only be determined by the Revenue Court. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the title to agricultural land. 14. As already observed above, the plaintiff has failed to prove his title to the disputed land and, therefore, his suit for partition and injunction has rightly been dismissed. Besides this finding is a finding of fact arrived at after due appreciation of the evidence on record. The same cannot be upset while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code and for this reason no ground for interference is made out. 15. It is however observed that the finding returned that the property in suit belongs to the Gaon Sabha is a finding without jurisdiction. However on this ground the dismissal of the suit for partition is not liable to be interfered with as nothing turns upon it. Even a suit for partition of agricultural land would be before the revenue Court. 16. However on this ground the dismissal of the suit for partition is not liable to be interfered with as nothing turns upon it. Even a suit for partition of agricultural land would be before the revenue Court. 16. Accordingly and in view of the above discussion, this second appeal is found to raise no substantial question of law for determination. 17. It is accordingly dismissed.