SHYAMA SINGH Vs. SARV DEO SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of 16 decimal land of plot No. 420 against the defendant with the allegation that plaintiff is recorded over the land and the defendant without any legal authority is attempting to interfere. Defendant, who is the appellant before this Court, contested the suit by saying that plot No. 420 corresponds to previous plot No. 617, in respect of which the dispute between the parties had traveled upto the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, and the rights of the defendant over 16 decimal land of plot No. 617 had been recognized. It was therefore submitted that once the issue stands resolved by the consolidation court, thereafter the original suit was not maintainable before the civil court as the bar of section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') would operate and the suit as such be dismissed.

(2.) On the basis of respective pleas set up by the parties in the pleadings, trial court proceeded to frame as many as 9 issues. Parties led their oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. Plaintiff filed Khatauni i.e. the record of right, in respect of the land in order to contend that in the basic year entry as well as in all subsequent entries the plaintiffs were recorded over the disputed plot as such the bar of section 49 would not operate. It was also stated that the decision of Deputy Director of Consolidation relied upon by the defendant would otherwise not come to their rescue as the Deputy Director of Consolidation had merely allowed the revision filed by the plaintiff in respect of other part of Khasra No. 617, and there was no adjudication in respect of 16 decimal land of suit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision No. 1153 dated 21.1.1964, the defendants were recognized as owners of plot No. 617, area 16 decimal, and contrary view taken by the civil court is impermissible. It is also stated that the suit itself was barred under Section 49 of the Act and the decree of the courts below is without jurisdiction.