Deoki Nandan, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for declaration that he is the adopted son of Raghupati Singh.
(2.) The two courts below have held that the point in issue between the parties, namely whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of Raghupati Singh, was res judicata and the suit was not maintainable in view of Holdings Act, by reason of the judgment by the High Court in C. M. Writ Petition No. 3450 of 1960 dated 6th May, 1960, quashing the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation and directing that the name of the defendant shall be recorded as the tenure-holder in place of her deceased husband Raghupati Singh.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the view of the two courts below that the trial of the plaintiffs claim for the declaration that he is the adopted son of Raghupati Singh was barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, or by res judicata is erroneous in law. He relied on Noor Khan v. Board of Revenue, 1977 All WC 394 ; in which K. N. Seth, J. repelled the argument that the suit in the revenue court in that case was barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, with the following observations: "Proceedings under Chapt. III of the Act are confined to the preparation of record of rights. If a persons name is shown as a tenure-holder of the land, he can possibly have no grievance in that proceeding. The details about parentage, residence etc. are not material in that proceeding. Moreover, the consolidation authorities are concerned with regard to rights of a person as a tenure-holder and this alone they are competent to adjudicate upon. The question of parentage of a person does not relate to any right in the land. Such a matter can be adjudicated upon only by regular courts. Even if such a dispute is raised before the consolidation authorities, they would not be competent to decide it. While preparing the record of rights the consolidation authorities are not concerned with the shares which the different tenure-holders have in the land. They are also not competent to take proceedings for partitioning of the respective shares of the tenure-holders. Objections contemplated under Chap. III have to be confined to the arrangement of the consolidation scheme and cannot go beyond it. In this view of the matter it cannot be accepted that the objection relating to the parentage of the petitioner could or ought to have been raised in consolidation proceedings. Since the matter did not relate to any right in the land and could not have been raised in consolidation proceedings the bar created by Section 49 of the Act is not attracted and the court was competent to adjudicate upon the dispute.";