JUDGMENT : Ved Prakash Vaish, J. 1. Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra with Sri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.') filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 10.8.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Unnao in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Purwa, Unnao, was dismissed. 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case as born out from the appeal are that Sri Ayodhya @ Chhotkauna filed Original Suit No.109 of 1984 (Ayodhya alias Chhotkauna vs. Satti Lal and another) against the appellants on the allegations that he was a bhoomidhar-owner-in possession of Plot No.229 situated in Village Kutubpur, Pargana Bihar, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao; the defendants/appellants are sons of his real brother-in-law, who are residing at a distance of twenty miles from the village of the plaintiff; the defendants seldom used to come to the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know that the defendants have filed a mutation case on the basis of forged sale deed alleged to have been executed by him on 23.9.1981; the mutation proceedings are forged; no notice was served upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not executed the sale deed and had not received any consideration; the sale deed is forged and fictitious. 4. The suit was contested by the appellants/defendants by filing written statement. The defendants denied the allegations made in the plaint, it was stated that the sale deed was genuine document and executed by the plaintiff after receiving the entire consideration. The defendants are the sons of real brother-in-law of the plaintiff; the plaintiff was issue-less and was living alone and the defendants used to look-after him. It was also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff had received entire consideration amount and executed the sale deed dated 23.9.1981 in the presence of witnesses which was duly registered; the possession of the land in question was handed over to the appellants and appellants are in possession of the said land. The appellants got the land mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed. The appellants got the land mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the registered sale deed. It was also stated that the villagers were harassing the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not want to live in the said village and therefore, he had sold the land in question and put his thumb impression in the presence of witnesses Shiv Shanker and Raj Narian. 5. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the same, denied the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. 6. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff, Ayodhya had died on 16.11.1985 and an application under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. alongwith application under Order XXII Rule 9 of C.P.C. for setting aside abatement was filed by Smt. Raj Kumari (respondent herein). The said applications were allowed and the name of Smt. Rajkumari was substituted vide order dated 13.8.1993. The appellants challenged the said order by filing Civil Revision No.102 of 1993. The said revision petition was dismissed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Unnao vide order dated 4.9.1999. 7. Thereafter, the appellants filed an additional written statement and stated that the deceased Ayodhya had not executed will in favour of Smt. Raj Kumari; the deceased Ayodhya belongs to ''Yadav' caste and Smt. Raj Kumari belongs to ''Brahman' caste. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial court:- 1- D;k oknh c;ukek fnukafdr 23-9-81 eUlw[k djk ikus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ 2- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu de fd;k x;k gS rFkk vnk fd;k x;k U;k;'kqYd vi;kZIr gS\ 3- okfnuh fdl vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ 9. In support of her case, the respondent/plaintiff examined four witnesses. Smt. Raj Kumari appeared as P.W.-1, Sri Ram Sewak appeared as P.W.-2, Ram Das, Revenue Collection Incharge appeared as P.W.-3 and Sri S.P. Ghosh, hand writing expert has been examined as P.W.-4. The appellants/defendants examined two witnesses, Sri Shiv Shanker as D.W.-1 and Sri Satti Lal (defendant no.1) as D.W.-2. 10. After considering the evidences adduced by the parties and the pleas of the parties, suit was decreed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Purwa, Unnao vide judgment and decree dated 30.1.2001. 11. Against the said judgment and decree dated 30.1.2001, the appellants filed Civil Appeal No.22 of 2001. The said appeal was dismissed by learned District Judge, Unnao vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.2001. 12. 11. Against the said judgment and decree dated 30.1.2001, the appellants filed Civil Appeal No.22 of 2001. The said appeal was dismissed by learned District Judge, Unnao vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.2001. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 13. Vide order dated 29.10.2001, present appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law formulated at Serial No.1 to 4 and 6 of the grounds of appeal. The same are as under; 1. Whether the courts below have acted in accordance with law in deciding the Suit on merits without adjudicating upon the right of the plaintiff/respondent as legal representative of the original plaintiff, who died after the filing of Suit, on the basis of unregistered Will dated 29.10.1985? 2. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below without adjudicating upon the questions about the due execution and genuineness of the Will dated 29.10.1985 as per settled principles of law can be said to be in accordance with law? 3. Whether rejection of the application dated 17.10.2000 (Paper No.C-72) and application dated 9.1.2001 (Paper No.C-106), thereby preventing the defendants/appellants from bringing very crucial and material evidence on the record of the trial court can be held to be legal and whether these orders would not be render the impugned judgments and decrees as illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below in a Suit which was barred by the provisions of Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act can be held to be according to law? 6. Whether as per admitted allegations made in the Plaint admitting therein that the name of the appellants was already mutated over the land in Suit, the courts below had the jurisdiction to entertain the Suit and decide the same which was barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and which could only be entertained under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act? 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. I have also carefully gone through the material on record. Substantial question of law nos.1 and 2:- 15. Both these questions are inter-connected and are being taken up together. 16. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. I have also carefully gone through the material on record. Substantial question of law nos.1 and 2:- 15. Both these questions are inter-connected and are being taken up together. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that original suit was filed by Sri Ayodhya who belonged to different caste, he died issue-less and respondent herein Smt. Raj Kumari is not the legal heir of Sri Ayodhya and she belongs to different caste; after the death of the original plaintiff, Ayodhya, the name of Smt. Raj Kumari (respondent) was substituted on the basis of the Will but she is not the legal heir of the deceased plaintiff. 17. The counsel for the appellants also submitted that Sri Ayodhya expired on 5.10.1985 which is clear from the family register (Kutumb Register) and the alleged Will in favour of Raj Kumari is dated 29.10.1985; the appellants took an objection in the additional written statement that the Will dated 29.10.1985 is not a genuine document but no issue regarding genuineness and validity of the Will was framed by the trial court. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent urged that the plaintiff Sri Ayodhya executed a Will dated 29.10.1985 which was duly registered in the office of the Registrar, Sri Ayodhya died on 16.11.1985 and copy of death certificate was filed before the trial court; as per death certificate, the date of death of Sri Ayodhya is 16.11.1985. He further submitted that copy of family register filed by the appellants was not proved before the trial court and the same was rightly disbelieved by the trial court. 19. As regards the death of plaintiff Ayodhya, it may be mentioned that the respondent has filed copy of death certificate which shows the date of death of Sri Ayodhya as 16.11.1985. Moreover, the trial court, while deciding the issue no.1, has observed that according to the appellants, the plaintiff Sri Ayodhya died on 5.10.1985 but according to the respondent, Sri Ayodhya died on 16.11.1985. The appellants have filed copy of family register and as per family register, the date of death of Sri Ayodhya is 5.10.1985. Moreover, the trial court, while deciding the issue no.1, has observed that according to the appellants, the plaintiff Sri Ayodhya died on 5.10.1985 but according to the respondent, Sri Ayodhya died on 16.11.1985. The appellants have filed copy of family register and as per family register, the date of death of Sri Ayodhya is 5.10.1985. The trial court has also observed that in Suit No.24 of 1986, the appellants filed an affidavit (15-C) wherein it was stated that date of death of Sri Ayodhya is 25.10.1985 and in these circumstances, the defendants/appellants should have proved the copy of the family register. Moreover, the Will is duly registered on 29.10.1985 and if Ayodhya died on 16.11.1985, he could not have put thumb impression on the Will in the office of Sub-registrar on 29.10.1985. 20. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that copy of the family register is a public document and is admissible without any proof. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment titled as ''R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder V. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami V.P. Temple' 2004 (22) LCD 1392 . The said judgment is of no help to the appellants. In the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that certified copy of a public document and its photocopy tendered in evidence and exhibited without objection by the other party is admissible in evidence, without formal proof, for the purpose of proving the existence and contents of the original. In the present case, copy of the family register filed by the appellants was neither proved nor tendered in evidence nor the same was admitted by the respondent. 21. So far as the substitution of the respondent is concerned, it may be mentioned that the rights of a legal representative to proceeding with a suit filed by a deceased plaintiff are concerned, Order 22 Rules 1 and 3(1) of C. P. C. govern the matter. 21. So far as the substitution of the respondent is concerned, it may be mentioned that the rights of a legal representative to proceeding with a suit filed by a deceased plaintiff are concerned, Order 22 Rules 1 and 3(1) of C. P. C. govern the matter. The said provisions read as under:- Order 22 Rule 1 "No abatement by party's death, if right to sue survives- The death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives" Rule 3 "Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff- (1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit". 22. The spirit of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be taken to be to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties finally and conclusively, if it is possible to do so in cases in which any one of the parties dies. A case should not be left undecided. It is not meant to be left at an intermediate stage, if it is possible to have it finally determined. In case of the death of a plaintiff when the court comes to know regarding his death and of the persons who are competent to represent the deceased plaintiff after his death, it is competent for the court to take suitable action. Viewed in this light, in my view, the words ''legal representative' must be construed as including those persons who are in opposition to carry on further proceedings in the suit. Normally, such persons are all the heirs of the deceased plaintiff. There may be cases where even some of the heirs may represent the deceased plaintiff. In all the cases, such persons may be the legal representatives of the deceased within the meaning of Order 22 Rule 3 of the C. P. C. 23. Normally, such persons are all the heirs of the deceased plaintiff. There may be cases where even some of the heirs may represent the deceased plaintiff. In all the cases, such persons may be the legal representatives of the deceased within the meaning of Order 22 Rule 3 of the C. P. C. 23. The application must be instituted for bringing on record those persons who had the right in law to continue the suit filed by the deceased plaintiff, that is who represent the deceased plaintiff for the purpose of prosecuting the suit. If their names have been brought to the notice of the court, it becomes the duty of the court to array them as party whether as plaintiffs or defendants. Order 22 rule 3 (1) of C. P. C. is purposely worded in sufficiently wide language. Once the court is made aware of the persons who are in the position to prosecute the suit, it is left to it to make them a party. Thus, the provisions of Order 22 rule 3 of C.P.C. sets out the rights of legal representatives to continue the proceedings instituted earlier by a deceased plaintiff, if right to sue survives. 24. The deceased plaintiff Sri Ayodhya filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and after his death, the issue was as to whether or not the suit abates and it was not proper for the trial court to have gone into the question of genuineness, legality or validity of the will, which, in-fact, could have been decided in the appropriate proceedings. 25. Thus, in my view, the name of Smt. Raj Kumari was rightly substituted to continue the suit and represent the estate of the deceased on the basis of the registered Will. Substantial question of law no.3:- 26. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants moved an application dated 17.10.2000 (Paper No.C-72) for opening the sealed cover containing specimen thumb impression of the deceased Ayodhya and another application dated 9.1.2001 (Paper No.C-106) for comparison of thumb impression of the deceased Ayodhya on the plaint and the said applications were wrongly rejected by the trial court. 27. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants moved an application dated 17.10.2000 (Paper No.C-72) for opening the sealed cover containing specimen thumb impression of the deceased Ayodhya and another application dated 9.1.2001 (Paper No.C-106) for comparison of thumb impression of the deceased Ayodhya on the plaint and the said applications were wrongly rejected by the trial court. 27. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that on an application (66-C) filed by the appellants, specimen thumb impression of Sri Ayodhya (deceased) was taken before the Court on 26.10.1985, in the presence of both the parties, and the specimen thumb impression of Sri Ayodhya were compared by the handwriting expert and the report of handwriting expert is Ex.76-A. According to the counsel for respondent, the dismissal of said two applications is of no consequence. 28. It is settled principle of law that the appellants must establish consequent failure of justice by dismissal of said two applications. In my view, learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out that dismissal of the said two applications has caused any miscarriage of justice to the appellants. Substantial question of law nos.4 and 6:- 29. Both the questions are inter-connected and are being considered together. 30. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit for cancellation of sale deed before the civil court is barred by Section 331 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. He has also pointed out that the name of appellants was entered in the revenue record. Copy of the khatauni was filed before the trial court. 31. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that copy of the khatauni was not proved before the trial court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the suit for cancellation of sale deed is maintainable before the civil court in view of the law laid down in the case of ''Ram Padharath V. Second A.D.J., Sultanpur', 1989 R.D.21. 32. The law regarding right, title and interest over the agricultural land is contained in the U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ''U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act') which is a complete Code in itself. The said Act more particularly the Schedule to it enumerates the suits etc., cognizance of which is to be taken by the revenue court. The said Act being special Act, its provisions would prevail over the general law. The said Act more particularly the Schedule to it enumerates the suits etc., cognizance of which is to be taken by the revenue court. The said Act being special Act, its provisions would prevail over the general law. The jurisdiction of civil court is barred if the relief can be granted by the said court conferred with jurisdiction to grant such relief. Schedule-II of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act provides that suit for declaration of rights will lie before Assistant Collector Ist Class. 33. Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act 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 (V of 1908), take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in Column 3 thereof [,] [or of a 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 or any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II insofar as they relate to suits, applications 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.] [(1-A) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (i), an objection, that a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II, or, as the case may be, a civil court, which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or, proceeding, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.] (2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order or [decree] passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule aforesaid: [(3) An appeal shall lie from any decree or from an order passed under Section 47 or an order of the nature mentioned in Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) or in Order 43, Rule 1 of the First Schedule to that Code passed by a court mentioned in Column No. 4 of Schedule II to this Act in proceedings mentioned in Column 3 thereof to the court or authority mentioned in Column No. 5 thereof. (4) A second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under sub-section (3), to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in Column 6 of the Schedule aforesaid.]" 34. From a bare perusal of Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, it is manifestly clear that the section specifically ousts the jurisdiction of civil court in respect of suits, application etc. enumerated in Scheduled II of the said act. 35. The expression ''any relief' used in Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is of wide import and would not only mean the relief claimed but also include any relief arising out of the cause of action which led the plaintiff to invoke the jurisdiction of a court of law. 35. The expression ''any relief' used in Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act is of wide import and would not only mean the relief claimed but also include any relief arising out of the cause of action which led the plaintiff to invoke the jurisdiction of a court of law. The word ''relief' is not part of cause of action nor the same is related to the defence set up in the case. The relief is a remedy which the court grants from the facts asserted and proved in an action. 36. The scope of ambit of Section 331 and Scheduled II of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act came up for the consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After considering the judgement of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in ''Ram Padharath's case (supra) relied upon by counsel for the respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ''Shri Ram and Another Vs. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge and others', (2001) 3 SCC 24 has observed as under:- "7. On 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 cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. 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." 37. Controversy regarding jurisdiction of civil court is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ''Kamla Prasad and others Vs. Krishna Kant Pathak and others', (2007) 4 SCC 213 . In the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "14. Controversy regarding jurisdiction of civil court is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ''Kamla Prasad and others Vs. Krishna Kant Pathak and others', (2007) 4 SCC 213 . In the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "14. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant rightly relied upon a decision of this Court in Shri Ram & Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 24 . In Shri Ram, A, the original owner of the land sold it to B by a registered sale deed and also delivered possession and the name of the purchaser was entered into Revenue Records after mutation. According to the plaintiff, sale deed was forged and was liable to be cancelled. In the light of the above fact, this Court held that it was only a Civil Court which could entertain, try and decide such suit. The Court, after considering relevant case law on the point, held that where a recorded tenure holder having a title and in possession of property files a suit in Civil Court for cancellation of sale deed obtained by fraud or impersonation could not be directed to institute such suit for declaration in Revenue Court, the reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. 15. The Court, however, proceeded to observe: "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". 16. The instant case is covered by the above observations. The lower Appellate Court has expressly stated that the name of the plaintiff had been deleted from Record of Rights and the names of purchasers had been entered. 16. The instant case is covered by the above observations. The lower Appellate Court has expressly stated that the name of the plaintiff had been deleted from Record of Rights and the names of purchasers had been entered. The said fact had been brought on record by the contesting defendants and it was stated that the plaintiff himself appeared as a witness before the Mutation Court, admitted execution of the sale deed, receipt of sale consideration and the factum of putting vendees into possession of the property purchased by them. It was also stated that the records revealed that the names of contesting defendants had been mutated into Record of Rights and the name of plaintiff was deleted. 17. In the light of the above facts, in our opinion, the Courts below were wholly right in reaching the conclusion that such a suit could be entertained only by a Revenue Court and Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The High Court by reversing those orders had committed an error of law and of jurisdiction which deserves interference by this Court. 38. In the instant case, the suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff, namely, Ayodhya, in paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is stated that the appellants/defendents got the land in question mutated in the revenue records on the basis of registered sale deed dated 23.9.1981 without any intimation to the plaintiff. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, it is stated that cause of action arose on 29.6.1983 when the plaintiff came to know that name of the defendants (appellants) had been mutated in the revenue records. Thus, it is clear that the names of the appellants had been entered in the revenue records before filing the suit and the appellants/defendants are recorded tenure holders. Thus, the plaintiff was required to seek declaration of his title and, therefore, he may approach the revenue court as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Ram's case (supra) and Kamla Prasad's case (supra). 39. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the suit is barred by Section 331 and Scheduled II of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.08.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Unnao in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2001 and the judgement and decree dated 30.1.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Purwa, Unnao in Suit No.109 of 1984 are set aside. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.08.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Unnao in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2001 and the judgement and decree dated 30.1.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Purwa, Unnao in Suit No.109 of 1984 are set aside. The respondent may approach the revenue court and seek declaration of her title. 40. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 41. Lower court record be sent back forthwith.