RAJ KARAN Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7-6-2000 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham in Appeal No. 283/321 of 1999-2000. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner al­lowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 26- 4-2000 passed by the trial Court in suit No. 205 under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LRAct.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Raja Ram instituted a suit for declaration that he was bhumidhar of the land in ques­tion and that the entries in revenue records did not represent the correct state of af­fairs. The defendants contested the suit. The trial Court framed three issues and gave both parties an opportunity of adduc­ing evidence and of being heard. It found that the suit is barred by Section 49 of the UPCH Act and dismissed the same. On appeal the learned Additional Commis­sioner allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence the present second appeal.

(3.) THERE is no dispute on the point that the village in which land indispute lies has under gone consolidation operation. The plaintiff who claims the1 rights on the basis of his possession from before the date of vesting did not file any objection during the course of consolidation operations and did not get his rights adjudicated upon during those proceedings. The trial Court after considering the entire material on record found that the suit is barred by Section 49 of the UPCH Act. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed that once the name of the plaintiff was recorded in 1359F and 1356 F his rights could not be defeated. The view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner does not appear to be sound. When the name of the plaintiff did not find mention in revenue records for a long time and during that period the consolidation of holdings intervened it was necessary for him to file an objection to get his rights declared by consolidation authorities. He failed to do so. Now it does not lie in his mouth to say that his rights still subsist. The trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that the suit was barred by UPCH Act. The learned Additional CommLi-sioner in his judgment omitted to mention this point. This vitiated his judgment. The order passed by the trial Court was correct and did not need any interference in second appeal.