PANDOHI Vs. MAHADEO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for injunction. He filed the suit with the allegation that plot No. 23/2 measuring about 5 biswas is his abadi land over which stand his houses and trees etc. The vacant plot of land constitutes his Sahan and that he was in possession bf the same. It was alleged that the Defendants have had no right, title and interest in the said land or any portion there if but they illegally in collusion with his friend and supporters threatened to interfere with the Plaintiff's possession other the said land and to cut down the trees standing thereon. He also alleged that he had made an objection before the consolidation authorities but the s me was rejected on technical grounds, hence he filed the suit for the aforesaid relief. The suit was contested by the Defendants on a number of grounds. They asserted that the plot in dispute was their grove and the Plaintiff had no interest therein. Even in consolidation proceedings the right of the Defendants wad recognised and the Plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to agitate the same in the civil court. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the Plaintiff against the said decision was also dismissed. He has now come to this Court in second appeal.

(2.) BOTH the courts below had taken the view that the suit was barred be the provisions of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, The learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that no doubt the Plaintiff had filed an application before the Consolidation Officer for correction of the relevant entry pertaining to the plot in suit but as the said application was rejected on the ground that it was barred by time and as no decision on merits was given, the Plaintiff could agitate in the suit before the civil court that the entry in question was wrong and as such the suit Was not, barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(3.) NO other point was urged.