S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THE short point for decision in this appeal is as to whether the suit in the instant case was barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act or not.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the appeal as disclosed from the record of the case is as follows: The land in suit comprised 100 links area of plot No. 370 old. The plot was originally recorded as the hereditary tenancy of Timmal and Telhu sons of Siar vide extract Khatauni 1354F. Ext. A -5 on the record. It appears that this plot of land was adjacent to the Abadi. In proceedings Under Section 53 of the UP Tenancy Act Raja Ram Misra Defendant No. 1 acquired this area for the purposes of constructing a house over it and thereafter he constructed a house over the same. On 1 -2 -1955 Raja Misra Defendant No. 1 sold the house along with the land appurtenant to it in favour of the Plaintiffs vide Ext. 5 on the record. The case of the Plaintiffs is that after this purchase they planted certain trees and bamboo clumps and remained in possession thereof. Although the Plaintiffs had their construction and trees on this plot which had acquired the nature of Abadi plot revenue entries showed that this plot was the sirdari plot of Raja Ram Misra. Consolidation operation took place in the village. The entry of the name of Raja Ram Misra continued and was not got corrected during consolidation operation. The Plaintiff's case is that since this plot had assumed the nature of Abadi and they were in possession they never knew that it was recorded as sirdari of Defendant No. 1 as such they did not take any step during consolidation operation to get the entries corrected. During consolidation operation this plot No. 370 was (sic) as 161 area 100 links. Since this (sic) continued to be recorded as sirdari of Raja Ram Misra although he had transferred this plot in favour of the Plaintiffs it appears that he obtained bhumidhari right in respect of this plot and sold it in favour of Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 Jagdeo and others by a registered sale deed dated 29 -4 -1962. After this sale according to the case of the Plaintiffs Defendants interfered with the possession of the Plaintiffs which necessitated the filing of the present suit with a prayer that the Defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs over the disputed plot which contained a delapi -dated house, trees and bamboo clumps. At the foot of the plaint the Plaintiffs gave the boundary of the plot and the old number 370 measuring 100 Karis. The suit was contested by the Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who pleaded that the land in suit was sirdars holding of Raja Ram Misra Defendant No. 1 who after acquiring bhumidhari right sold the same to the Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 so they have become the owner in possession of the plot in dispute. They denied the right of the Plaintiff and asserted that the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiffs was fictitious and pleaded the bar of Section 49 UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(3.) THE learned Munsif on a consideration of the evidence on the record held that Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act barred the jurisdiction of the civil court to sit in judgment over the entries made during consolidation proceedings. According to him entries made during consolidation operation were conclusive in nature and he further held that sale deed of sirdari holding by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiffs was void and created no title in the Plaintiffs. He accepted the sale in favour of the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to be valid accordingly dismissed the suit.;