B.N.Sapru, J. - (1.) The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of his one-third share in two plots viz., plots Nos. 246 and 247 (area .58 acres) situate in village Tighra. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed. The appeal was allowed in respect of plot No. 247 and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed under the orders of the appellate court. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate court the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.
(2.) It is undisputed that consolidation proceedings took place in the village. The dispute between the parties went up to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal. The appellate order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is dated 28-3-1961. In the judgment it is observed as follows:- "During spot inspection it is found that plot No. 247 (0.58 acres) was wrongly recorded as abadi. In fact this portion is grove of Ajodhya Singh and Baijnath Singh. The plots are, therefore, recorded as grove of Ajodhya, Singh and others (the appellants). The appeal is partly allowed as per adjustment mentioned below. A copy of this order is to be sent to C. O. Mani Ram for Amaldaramad." It appears that despite the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the land was recorded in the name of Ajodhya Singh and others and the name of Baijnath Singh and others, the plaintiffs, was not recorded over the land in suit as bhumidhars.
(3.) The appellate court was of the view that plot No. 247 was not abadi and that the entry in CH. Form No. 45 that it was the bhumidhari of the defendants alone was final and binding oh the civil courts. Aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate court the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that in view of the judgment of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the relevant extracts of whose judgment have been quoted above, it is clear that both the plaintiffs and the defendants were held to be co-bhumidhars. The entry made subsequently to the decision of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation showing the defendants alone as bhumidhars was obviously incorrect. This entry according to the learned counsel is not binding on the civil Court. Section 27 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act runs as follows:- "All entries in the record-of-rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved." In this case the learned counsel submits it is proved that the entries are not true. According to him they did not faithfully represent the effect of the decision of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has clearly held that both the plaintiffs and the defendants are co-bhumidhars. In this view of the matter the learned counsel is correct in his submission. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has stated that both the plaintiffs and the defendants are co-bhumidhars. This decision is final between the parties. The entries made subsequent to the decision of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, which are inconsistent with that decision, cannot take away the rights of the plaintiff. Tire judgment of the lower appellate court in this regard, therefore, cannot be sustained.;