C.S.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed on the ground that he was a co-sir-holder with his father, and after the passing of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had become a co-bhumidhar, and that his father could not transfer the entire land. Previous to the filing of the suit, the village had been brought under consolidation operation, and in these proceedings which later became final, the name of Asa Ram, father of the plaintiff alone was shown as Bhumidhar. He, thereafter, executed a sale-deed and it was then that the plaintiff filed the suit. THE courts below have held that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Counsel however, urged that the Consolidation of Holdings Act docs not bar a suit where the right claimed is founded on the allegation that the tenure-holder is recorded in a representative capacity. I am unable to agree with this contention. Under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, extracts from revenue records are prepared and objections are invited. In the present case, as there is no allegation that any objections were filed under Section 9, it must be taken that notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued showing the name of Asa Ram as the sole Bhumidhar. It was open to the plaintiff to have filed objection in these proceedings claiming his share in the holding or claiming co-Bhumidhari rights. No such objection appears to have been preferred. THE name of Asa Ram the plaintiff's father must have been thereafter entered in the revenue record prepared under Section 27 of the Act. After that stage was reached, the bar of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act came into play. Section 49 of the Act runs as under :- "49. Bar to Civil Court-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenureholdersi n respect of land lying in an area of which a notification has been issued under sub-Section (2) of Section 4, or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and no civil or revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceedings with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matter in which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." This bar came into effect on account of the fact that on the publication of the new revenue records, a declaration of the rights of Asa Ram, the father of the plaintiff took place, and any challenge to his being the sole Bhumidhar could not thereafter be entertained by any civil court on account of the fact that the plaintiff could or ought to have taken objection to the name of Asa Ram being entered as sole-Bhumidhar in consolidation proceedings. In Jagarnath Shukla v. Sita Ram Pandey, 1969 AWR 435 it has been held that a suit for cancellation of the sale deed is in effect one for declaration that the plaintiff is the tenure-holder of the land in dispute. Thus the suit instituted by the plaintiff was in substance one for declaration of his rights over the land in dispute. THEre is no gainsaying the fact that such a declaration could be obtained by the plaintiff by filing objection under Section 9 of the Act. This, as has been seen, he failed to do, and as a consequence the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(2.) IN view of the above, the appeal is dismissed in limini. K.J.C. Appeal dismissed.;