A.N.Verma, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal arising out of a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over certain agricultural plots. Both the courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit as time barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, in respect of her claim regarding the plots in suit in villages in which proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had taken place. In respect of the properties suit in other villages the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on merits.
(2.) The question which arises for consolidation is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of the plot of land in suit in villages Gaighat, Maharaj Pattan alias Palia and Rampur Gopalpur. The courts below have dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's claim in respect of the aforesaid villages as time barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, on the ground that in the records prepared by the Consolidation Authorities in the course of consolidation operations, conducted under the aforesaid Act, the names of the defendants only were entered, whereas the plaintiff's name was not entered. She did not file any objection under the said Act, even though she ought to have filed an objection asserting her rights in the land in dispute.
(3.) In order to determine the controversy, relevant pleadings of the plaintiff might be set out. The plaintiff came to the court with the assertion that the land in suit was the ancestral sir and khudkasht of the joint Hindu Family, of which both the plaintiff and the defendants belong, the plaintiff, therefore, had a right in that land by virtue of being a member of the family and as a result of the coming into force of Act No. 1 of 1951 she became a co-bhumidhar of the same along with the contesting respondents. The names of the defendants alone, however, continued in record. Taking advantage of those entries, the defendant-respondents have started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute. Hence the suit.;