Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9584 Court No. - 4 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 33 of 2025 Appellant :- Krishna Prasad And 8 Others Respondent :- Dev Suman And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Mani Pandey Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. Heard Sri Indra Mani Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the co-tenure holder cannot raise construction on any part of the land in dispute without partition but without considering it, the learned courts below have dismissed the suit as well as the appeal, which could not have been done. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the documents placed on record of this appeal. The suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was filed on the ground that the partition had not taken place, therefore, no construction can be raised by the respondents, whereas as per the findings recorded by the courts below, the shares were determined in the consolidation proceedings and only demarcation was to be done, which could have been got done by the parties. The courts below have recorded a finding that the suit is in respect of the agricultural property, therefore, it is not maintainable before the civil court and since the appellants have equally efficacious remedy, the suit is not maintainable under Section 41-H of the Specific Relief Act and learned courts below have dismissed the suit as well as the appeal after considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record by a reasoned and speaking orders, which does not call for any interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Akanksha Sri/- Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench