RAM PAL SINGH Vs. KHANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for cancellation of a sale-deed on the ground that he was a co-sir-holder with his father, and after the passing of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had become a co-bhumidhar, and that his father could not transfer the entire land. Previous to the filing of the suit, the village had been brought under consolidation operation, and in these proceedings which later became final, the name of Asa Ram, father of the plaintiff alone was shown as Bhumidhar. He, thereafter, executed a sale-deed and it was then that the plaintiff filed the suit. THE courts below have held that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Counsel however, urged that the Consolidation of Holdings Act docs not bar a suit where the right claimed is founded on the allegation that the tenure-holder is recorded in a representative capacity. I am unable to agree with this contention. Under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, extracts from revenue records are prepared and objections are invited. In the present case, as there is no allegation that any objections were filed under Section 9, it must be taken that notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued showing the name of Asa Ram as the sole Bhumidhar. It was open to the plaintiff to have filed objection in these proceedings claiming his share in the holding or claiming co-Bhumidhari rights. No such objection appears to have been preferred. THE name of Asa Ram the plaintiff's father must have been thereafter entered in the revenue record prepared under Section 27 of the Act. After that stage was reached, the bar of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act came into play. Section 49 of the Act runs as under :-

(2.) IN view of the above, the appeal is dismissed in limini. K.J.C. Appeal dismissed.