JUDGMENT B.D. Gupta, J. - This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents on the 30th of May, 1957, in which the plaintiff claimed the relief of a declaration that they were the Bhumidhars of Khasra plots nos. 63, 64 and 65 along with the groves standing on those plots. It was further prayed that, in case the plaintiffs were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit or were found to have been dispossessed at any time, possession may also be granted to the plaintiffs. 2. The allegations made by the plaintiffs in support of their claim were denied by the defendants who claimed similar rights in themselves and certain issues were framed on the merits of the controversy that arose between the parties. On the 17th of December, 1958, the defendants filed a number of papers, which included the following three documents :- (a) Allotment order dated the 11th of April, 1958, in C. H. Form No. 25 under Section 25 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. (b) Statement of proposals dated the 1st of March, 1957, in C. H. Form no. 24 under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act. (c) Khatauni Chakbandi together with the notice in C. H. Form No. 20 under Section 11 of the aforesaid Act. 3. On the date of hearing, i.e., the 26th of November, 1959, in pursuance of the contention raised on defendants' behalf that the suit be decided on the basis of the findings of the Consolidation authorities, the learned Munsif framed two additional issues which ran as follows :- "(1) Whether the plots in suit have been a subject matter of adjudication before the Consolidation authorities ? If so, its effect ? If so, its effect ? (2) Whether the Consolidation authorities had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights with respect to the property in suit ?" Thereafter parties led evidence which having been concluded on the 27th of November, 1959, arguments were heard and, by judgment dated the 1st of December, 1959, the learned Munsif gave plaintiffs a decree in the following terms : "Suit be decreed with costs for declaration that the plaintiffs are Bhumidhars of the plots in suit." As regards the additional issues framed by the learned Munsif on the 26th of November, 1959, the learned Munsif took the view that the documents mentioned earlier in this judgment showed that the plots in suit constituted a grove and that the Consolidation authorities had, therefore, no right to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. The learned Munsif, therefore, whilst answering the first additional issue in the affirmative, answered the second additional issue in the negative. 4. The plaintiffs made no grievance about the decree passed by the learned Munsif either by filing an appeal or a cross-objection, but the defendants filed an appeal which was decided by the learned appellate Judge on the 19th of November, 1960. In respect of the view taken by the learned Munsif on the additional issues, the learned Judge substantially agreed with that view with the result that the learned Judge proceeded to deal with the merits of the claims of the parties and upheld the decree passed by the trial court. The defendants then filed this second appeal. 5. The only point raised by Mr. S.S. Tyagi, counsel for the appellants, is that, whatever be the position of a grove, so far as grove-land is concerned, it is now settled that the Consolidation authorities have full jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties pertaining to grove-land. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dalel and another v. Baroo and others (1963 A.L.J.R. 265). Learned counsel has urged that this decision makes it perfectly clear that determination of title by the authorities constituted under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of grove-lands is final and not liable to question in any court of law and that Section 49 of the Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Whatever may have been the state of authorities in respect of disputes concerning grove-lands before the decision of the Full Bench referred to above, it is now settled that the jurisdiction of the Consolidation authorities to adjudicate upon questions of title about grove-land stands fully recognised. In the present case the three documents filed by the defendants, which have been mentioned earlier in this judgment, fully make out that the Consolidation authorities actually decided or must be deemed to have decided the question of title to the plots in suit in favour of the defendants. This decision must be deemed to have taken place sometime on or before the 11th of April, 1958, whilst the suit was still pending before the trial court. Therefore, even if it were held that the suit when filed, was maintainable, the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, as it stood on the relevant date, made it obligatory upon the learned Munsif to decide the controversy in accordance with the decision of the Consolidation authorities in so far as plaintiffs' claim for a declaration that they were the Bhumidhars of the plots in suit was concerned. The result, therefore, is that the plaintiffs' claim for a declaration that they were Bhumidhars of the plots in suit must fail. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents urged that there was nothing to indicate that notice under Section 11 of the Act had been served on his clients. A perusal of Section 11 shows that personal service of the notice thereunder on persons who may be interested is not required. Moreover, official acts must be deemed to have been duly performed and it was the duty of the plaintiffs to have alleged and established that they bad no notice. This contention is, therefore, without substance and cannot be given effect to. 7. As regards plaintiffs' claim for a declaration that they were Bhumidhars of the plots in suit together with the groves standing thereon, it does not appear necessary to go into the question whether or not the relief claimed in respect of groves standing on those plots is covered by the purview of the Act inasmuch as even though no such declaration had been granted by the decree of the trial court. The plaintiffs never appealed, or filed any cross-objection, in respect of the relief claimed by them that they be given a declaration in respect of the groves also. The trial court must be deemed to have refused to grant the plaintiffs any relief in respect of the groves and the implied dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim for that relief must be deemed to have become final. The result therefore, is that this appeal must be allowed. 8. I accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the courts below and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit but, in the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of the entire litigation throughout.