C.S.P.Singh, J. - (1.) THIS revision has come up before us on a reference made by and learned single Judge. The facts relating to the revision are these, Ratan Lal sold certain Bhumidhari plots of land to Shri Ram and Shri Ram subsequently executed an agreement to reconvey the property within a period of two years. Shri Ram did not reconvey the property and as a result, Ratan Lal filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed Ratan Lal then transferred his right to one Dhani Ram and Dhani Ram made an application under Order XXI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 19-12-1963 for execution of the decree as an assignee of the decree-holder. In spite of transferring his rights to Dhani Ram, Ratan Lal also moved an application for execution of the decree. The execution proceedings ended in a compromise on 26-5- 1964 and Ratan Lal received an amount of Rs. 7, 000 and the decree was struck off. Shri Ram, the first vendee from Ratan Lal objected to the maintain ability of the application filed by Dhani Ram. The objections filed by Shri Ram were upheld and the execution applica tion of Dhani Ram was dismissed on 9-10-1964. Dhani Ram preferred an ap peal against this order. During the'pen dency of this appeal, a notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued and an objection was raised by the respondents to the effect that the appeal had abated on account of notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The appellate court relying on the decision in the case of Chattan Singh v. Hira Singh, (1969 All JUT 189) held that the appeal did not abate. Shri Ram there after filed a revision in this Court.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge after referring to Section 5 (2) fa) and Section 9 (1) (a) (i) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, tentatively took the view that it may be possible to hold that a right to get a sale deed executed in res pect of land is a right in relation to the land and as such it may be possible to file an objection before the consolidation authorities in respect of such a right and in such an eventuality the same matter would be concurrently answered in two forms with the possibility of conflicting decisions. He was of the view that this aspect of the matter had not been con sidered in Chattan Singh's case, 1969 All LJ 189 (supra) and thie being so, he re ferred the case to a larger Bench. It is useful to extract Section 5 (2) fa) and Section 9 (1) (a) (i) of the Act at this stage for the decision turns on the interpreta tion to be put on these two sections:- "(5) (2) Effect of notification under Section 4 (2) (1). (2) Upon the said publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Sec tion 4, the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely- (a) every proceeding for the correc tion of records and every suit and pro ceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceed ings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any court or autho rity whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision shall, on an order passed in this behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated: Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post or in any other manner and after giving them an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that on the issue of a notification under subjection (1) of Section 6 in respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the land lying in such area or part, as the case may be, shall stand vacated:" "9. Issue of extracts from records and statements, publication of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8- A and the issue of notices for inviting objections. (1) Upon the preparation of the re cords of the statements mentioned in Sec tions 8 and 8-A, the Assistant Consolida tion Officer shall- (a) correct the clerical mistakes, if any and send, or cause to be sent, to the tenure-holders concerned and other per sons interested, notices containing rele vant extracts from the current annual register and such other records as may be prescribed showing- (i) their rights in and liabilities in relation to the land; Before we consider the ques tion as to v/hether a claim of this type falls under Section 5 (2) (a) of the Act and refer to the various decisions eci this point, it is necessary to ascertain the rights which the parties were claiming and which was the subject-matter of Dis pute. After Ratan Lal executed the sale- deed in favour of Shri Ram, Shri Earn became the Bhurnidhar of the property and till such time that the property was not reconveyed, neither Ratan Lal, nor Dhani Ram could claim rights of a Bhu rnidhar in the land in question. The only right which Ratan Lal or Dhani Ram could claim was for reconveyance of the property and this was based on the agree ment executed by Shri Ram in their favour. It has been seen that the suit for specific performance of the agreement for reconveying of the property had been decreed before the enforcement of the consolidation in the village and that de cision had become final, as no appeal etc. appears to have been filed. The only dis pute that remained when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued was as to the execution of a sale deed in res pect of the land. Now, so far as Dhani Ram is concerned, he could not seek any declaration of rights or interest in the land, inasmuch as the only rights that had accrued to him by then was to have a sale deed executed in respect of the land: before this, it was Shri Ram in whom the rights and interest in the land inhered. The rights which had accrued to him by that time were personal as against Shri Ram. So far as Shri Ram is concerned, as he was already a Bhumi-dhar of the land,, he could not also sue for declaration of his right as till the execution of the sale deed, he would have no cause of action for seeking such a declaration. This being so, the case would not be covered under the first part of Section 5 (2) (a) of the Act. The ques tion, as has been rightly posed by the learned Single Judge is as to whether the execution of the decree sought for by Dhani Ram would fall within the expres sion "or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act." We have to see as to whether the U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act provides a machinery for the adjudication of the claim of Dhani Ram for execution of the sale deed.
(3.) IT is now necessary at this stage to refer to some decisions cited at the Bar. In (1969 All LJ 189), a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale had been filed. The appellate court allow ed the appeal and decreed the suit. Dur ing the pendency of the appeal, the land in dispute had come under consolidation operation. In the second appeal filed in this Court, it was urged that the suit should have been stayed under Section 5 (b) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was held that Section 5 (b) of the Act governed only such suits which were for declaration of rights, title and inte rest in land and did not govern suits for specific performance of a contract. It was held that inasmuch as there was no pro vision under the Consolidation Act for granting a decree for specific perform ance of contract, or to execute such a decree, Section 5 (2) (a) of the Act did not apply In the case of Jagarnath Shu-kla v. Sita Ram Pande, (1969 All LJ 768), a question arose as to whether suits for cancellation of sale deeds in respect of agricultural plots, which were pending on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, should be abated under Sec tion 5 (2) of the Act. It was held that in asmuch as consolidation authorities could go into the question of validity of deeds of exchange, wills and decrees, it appear ed that the legislature intended that such question should be decided by consolida tion authorities and such suits should be abated.;