DARBARI LAL AND OTHERS Vs. CHOKHEY LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the hearing of the second appeal, the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Respondent submitted that in view of a notification issued Under Section 4 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, bringing the land in dispute in this appeal under consolidation operations this appeal be declared abated under the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub -section (2) of Section 5 of that Act as amended by UP Act No. XXI of 1966. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant -Appellant conceded that the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub -section (2) of Section 5 of that Act will apply and it would be for the consolidation authorities now to determine the rights of the parties with regard to the land in dispute but contended that the whole proceedings that is the suit itself should be declared to have abated. I had adjourned the hearing to enable the Learned Counsel for the Defendant -Appellant to produce before me a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court relating to the scope and interpretation of Clause (a) of Sub -section (2) of Section 5 of that Act. An uncertified copy of the judgment has been produced before me today by the Learned Counsel for the Defendant -Appellant and the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Respondent has no objection if the court relied upon this judgment.

(2.) IN Civil Appeal No. 691 of 1966 Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh and Ors. decided by the Supreme Court on 26 -10 -1967 (since reported in, 1968 AWR 14) the question involved was whether the appeal before the Supreme Court arising out of a suit for possession of an agricultural land was to be declared abated under the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub -section (2) of Section 5 of the Act. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the course of their judgment made the following observations in regard to the scope of Clause (a):

(3.) FURTHER if the narrow construction as put forward by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Respondent is given effect to as to the scope and interpretation of Clause (a) of Sub -section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, then there would arise an anomaly in the working of the Act which was never intended by the legislature. It is clear that the whole object behind enacting Clause (a) is that once the land in dispute is put under consolidation operation all the disputes relating to it shall be decided by the consolidation authorities. In other words, it would be the consolidation authority who will enquire into the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act and determine the rights of the parties. This object would be frustrated if I declare the second appeal abated and do not declare the suit abated as it would be then open to one of the parties to put forward the decree of the lower appellate court or of the trial court which was passed prior to the issue of the notification Under Section 4 of the Act and raise a plea before the consolidation authorities that the question of title was barred by principles of res judicata. It would mean that the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities would be taken away to decide the dispute and the very purpose of introducing Clause (b) in Sub -section (2) of Section 5 of the Act would be defeated.