- (1.) THIS appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. Mustafa Khan the appellant was the occupancy tenant of the plots in dispute. The appellant instituted a suit under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, for ejectment of one Najib Khan on the al legation that Najib Khan was a trespasser. The suit was decreed on October 23, 1944. In execution of the decree, possession was restored to the appellant on August 26, 1945.
(2.) SOON thereafter, two sons of Najib Khan, namely Mahboob Khan, respondent No. 4 and Vakil Khan, father of respon dents Nos. 5 (I) and (II), filed an objection under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil Procedure Code, claiming that they were in possession of the plots in their own rights and they were illegally dispossessed in execution of the decree. They claimed that they were the does of the mortgagee of the proprietary rights in relation to the plots in dispute and were in possession as such. The objection was allowed by the Execution Court, and in consequence, the two objectors were put in possession on June 19, 1946. Mustafa Khan, the appellant, then filed a suit under Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act, against, inter alia, the objectors. The suit was decreed on May 31, 1949. In ex ecution of the decree Mustafa Khan ap pellant was put in possession of the plots on November 13, 1949. Evidently, between 19th June, 1946 and 13th November, 1949 Mah boob Khan and Vakil Khan were in posses sion. They were recorded in the revenue papers of 1356 Fasli. On that basis the two objectors moved an application for restora tion of possession under Section 232 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. They claimed that they had acquired adhivasi rights on the grounds that they were recorded occupants in 1356 Fasli. During the pendency of this application the plots in dispute came under consolidation operations with the result that the proceedings were stayed. Mahboob Khan and Vakil Khan filed an objection in consolidation proceedings and claimed that they had become adhivasis because they were recorded as occupants in 1356 Fasli. The Consolidation Officer upheld their claim. His finding that the two objectors had be come adhivasis was upheld in appeal as well as in revision. The appellant challenged these orders in a writ petition which, however, failed and was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.
(3.) THE principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that Mahboob Khan and Vakil Khan were inter mediaries within meaning of Explanation IV to Section 20 and hence no adhivasis rights accrued to them. In the alternative, learn ed counsel submitted that the objectors were not in law recorded as occupants in 1356 Fasli. They did not become adhivasis. It was also urged that the decree in the suit under Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act, will be deemed to have corrected the entry of 1356 Fasli within meaning of Explanation III to Section 20 of the Act.;