RAMA SHANKER Vs. PARMESHWARI KUMARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision u/S. 115 of the CPC by Rama Shanker against the order dated 3 -8 -1968 of the District Judge, Ghazipur dismissing his appeal on the ground that two Miscellaneous Appeals should have been preferred and not one. The material facts of the case are that during the consolidation operations both Rama Shanker and Vikrama Singh filed objections u/S. 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood before its amendment in 1958. They claimed to be Bhumidhars of the disputed land. In pursuance of sub -S. (4) of S. 12 the Consolidation Officer referred the question of title for determination to the Civil Judge who on his part referred the question to the Arbitrator for decision. As two objections had been filed the Consolidation Officer gave two distinct numbers to the references and the Civil Judge also acted in the same manner. Rama Shanker felt dissatisfied with the award of the Arbitrator but the Civil Judge did not set aside the award. Thereafter Rama Shanker preferred only one Miscellaneous Appeal before the District Judge.

(2.) The learned District Judge was of the opinion that it was necessary for Rama Shanker to prefer two Miscellaneous Appeals and because the order in one case only was challenged, the decision in the other would act as res -judicata with the result that the appeal preferred by Rama Shanker could not be allowed.

(3.) The learned District Judge proceeded with the assumption that two distinct references had been made to the Civil Judge and similarly there were two references to the Arbitrator. However, the provisions of S. 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it then stood, make it clear that the reference is not dependant upon the number of the objections filed but upon the question of title involved.