TAKRU, J. - (1.) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by brother Oak, but regret my inability to share the view expressed by him therein.
(2.) THE question raised in this second appeal is, whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the Civil Court for a declaration that they, along with defendant No. 3, were the bhumidhars of the grove in question, was barred by section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called the Act). The facts giving rise to this appeal are stated in full in the judgment of brother Oak, and it is unnecessary therefore, to repeal them. Suffice it to say, that the necessity for seeking the declaration mentioned above arose as a result of the fact that the village in which the said grove was situate had come under consolidation operations in the course of which defendants Nos. 1 and 2 succeeded in getting their names recorded over the said grove by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. One of the pleas raised in defence was that the suit was barred by section 49 of the Act. That plea was rejected by the court as also by the lower appellate court. When it was raised in this Court before brother B. Dayal, he referred the appeal to a larger Bench, as in his opinion there was a conflict of view on that point. It is in these circumstances that this appeal has come up before us for our decision.
(3.) FROM what has been said above, it is clear that the whole case turns upon the correct construction of S. 49 of the Act. That section, at the material time, was in the following terms : "No person shall institute any suit or other proceeding in any Civil Court with respect to any matter arising out of consolidation proceedings or with respect to any other matter in regard to which a suit or application could be filed under the provisions of this Act." ;