Case: Suba Singh Vs. Mahendra Singh &amp; Others

2. This being the sole short point involved in this case, the facts may be briefly set out and the law bearing on this question stated. One Jagram had four sons, including Rambhajan. The latterthe father, having died in 1942. Theclaims to be the son of Ramhbajan Jagran died on 13th March, 1956, and if the plaintiffss claim were correct, as son of ason he would be entitled to a 4th share in Jagrams estate together with the 3 surviving sons. The question of fact on which the parties joined issues was as to whether the appellant was the son of Rambhajan at all. In proceedings before the consolidation authorities, his claim for mutation was upheld, but as earlier pointed, his ultimate fate was different in the civil courts. (It is true that the trial court has upheld his claim but we are concerned with the final verdict rendered by the High Court which is against the appellant).

Court's reasoning:
9. Now let us examine whether the matter falls within the exclusionary ambit of clause (2) of S. 49. The question further resolves itself into, whether the consolidation authorities had the jurisdiction to determine finally this complicated question of title when the cause of action had arisen subsequently to the finalisation, publication and even implementation of the consolidation scheme so far as Jagram was concerned. In our opinion the answer to this question must be in the negative. Section 27(1) requires the Director of Consolidation to cause soon after the consolidation scheme has come into force, the preparation of the record of rights and other revenue records, but this, in terms of thatis to be done in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 190l. According to Section 27(3), after the records have been so prepared, their further maintenance will be the responsibility of the Collector, and this, too, is to be done under Section 33 of the U. P. Land revenue Act, 1901.It was thus abundantly clear that an application for mutation on the basis of inheritance when the cause of action arose, after the finalisation and publication of the scheme under Section 23, is not a matter in regard to which an application could be filed "under the provisions of this Act within the meaning of clause 2 of Section 49. Thus, the other limb of Section 49, also is not attracted. The result is that the plea of bar of the civil courts jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate upon the title to the land or the sonship of the plaintiff has no substance. Nothing done in consolidation proceedings is undone by that suit. To urge that the formal notification under Section 52 not having been published the court had no jurisdiction is to misread Section 49 and to exalt a ritual into a legal reality.10. We may mention here that the Allahabad High Court has consistently taken this view, See Smt. Natho v. Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad, 1966 All LJ 563 where this position has been explained. But more clinchingly has this matter been dealt within a recent judgment of that Court in Smt. Bhuri v. Sunder, 1973 All LJ 352. We approve of the reasoning therein, in so far as it is in accord with the above observations and hold that there is no merit in this appeal and dismiss it but with no order as to costs in this Court having regard to the totality of circumstances in the case.