JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This is a Defendants' appeal, which has been referred by a learned Single Judge to a Bench because he felt that the decision of Capoor, J. in Fattan v. Balli 1964 AWR 594 required reconsideration. 2. The Plaintiffs-Respondents brought a suit for an injunction restraining the Defendants-Appellants from interfering with the Plaintiffs' rights in irrigating their plots from the well situate in plot No. 597. 3. It is admitted between the parties that plot No. 597 with this well was previously under the tenancy of the Plaintiffs. In the Consolidation scheme, this plot along with the well was allotted to the chak of the Defendants. The Defendant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for the well to the Plaintiffs. After taking possession of their allotted chak, the Plaintiffs claimed a right to irrigate their plots from the well situate in plot No. 597. The Defendants, however, did not permit them to do so. Hence the suit. The suit was contested on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it as well as on the merits by contesting the Plaintiffs' right of irrigation from this well. The trial court repelled the pleas in bar and decreed the suit, but only in relation to the plots mentioned in Schedule 1 to the plaint. The suit was dismissed in regard to the plots mentioned in Schedule 2. 4. The Defendants went up in appeal. The Plaintiffs filed a cross-objection. Tie lower appellate court affirmed the findings that the civil court had jurisdiction and that the Plaintiffs had a right to irrigate their plots from this well in relation to the plots mentioned in Schedule 1. It further upheld the Plaintiffs' case in respect of the plots mentioned in Schedule 2, with the result that the Defendants' appeal was dismissed, the cross-objection was allowed and the suit was decreed in toto. Aggrieved, the Defendants have come to this Court in second appeal. The findings of fact are that the Plaintiffs were previous owners of tae well. In the Consolidation scheme, the well as well as the plot No. 597 has been allotted to the chak of the Defendants. Aggrieved, the Defendants have come to this Court in second appeal. The findings of fact are that the Plaintiffs were previous owners of tae well. In the Consolidation scheme, the well as well as the plot No. 597 has been allotted to the chak of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs have been allotted the plots mentioned in Schedules 1 and 2 to the plaint and these plots were being irrigated from the well situate in plot No. 597 for a long time past since prior to the commencement of Consolidation proceedings. On these findings, it was held that Section 30 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act applied and the Plaintiffs were entitled to the claimed injunction. 5. 30 runs as follows: 30. Consequences which shall ensue on exchange of possession. With effect from the date on which a tenure-holder enters or is deemed to have entered into possession of the chak allotted to him, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the following consequences shall ensue-- (a)... ... ... ... (b) The tenure-holder entering into possession or deemed to have entered into possession, shall have in his chak the same rights, title, interests and liabilities as he had in the original holdings together with such other benefits of irrigation from a private source, till such source exists, as the former tenure-holder of the plots comprising the chak had in regard to them; (c) ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... (e) ... ... ... It will be seen that a tenure-holder has, in respect of the plots allotted to him the same rights, title, interests and liabilities as he had in his original holding. He has the further right to continue to enjoy the benefits of irrigation from a private source, if the former tenure-holder of the plots now given to him had been enjoying such a benefit. In the present case, the Plaintiffs were, prior to the consolidation scheme, enjoying the benefit of irrigation of the plots now allotted to them from the well in plot No. 597. On this finding, the Plaintiffs are entitled to continue to enjoy the same benefit of irrigation. 5. It was, however, urged that previously the Plaintiffs themselves were the owners of this well. On this finding, the Plaintiffs are entitled to continue to enjoy the same benefit of irrigation. 5. It was, however, urged that previously the Plaintiffs themselves were the owners of this well. But, to our mind, that makes no difference, because Section 30 continues the enjoyment of the benefit of irrigation irrespective of any kind of interest in the source of irrigation. If previously a particular tenure-holder had the benefit of irrigation without any interest in the well, he will continue to have that benefit. The continuance of the benefit of irrigation is not dependent upon the existence of any right, title or interest, in respect of the source of irrigation, but upon the existence of the benefit of irrigation. In our opinion, Capoor, J. was right in taking the view in Fattan v. Balli 1964 AWR 594 that the private source referred to in Section 30 would include a source which may have been previously owned by the tenure holder. 6. Mr. Bhargava, appearing for the Appellants, further urged that on the findings the well in dispute was not the only source of irrigation for the Plaintiffs' plots. The court below has held that the plots mentioned in the schedules to the plaint were being irrigated from a canal as well as from the well in dispute. Section 30 does not contemplate that irrigation from a private source must be a necessary the only source for the plots in question. All that it contemplates and provides for is the continuance of the benefit of irrigation which was existing at the time of the framing or finalisation of the consolidation scheme. So, even if a plot was being irrigated from a well in addition to being irrigated from a public canal, ii will nonetheless be within the purview of Section 30, because it had the benefit of irrigation from the private source. 7. The next point urged by Mr. Bhargava was that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the Act. We find no substance in this submission. Section 49 bars the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts with respect of rights in land covered by notification u/s 4 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, or with respect to any other matter for which proceedings could or ought to have been taken under that Act. We find no substance in this submission. Section 49 bars the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts with respect of rights in land covered by notification u/s 4 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, or with respect to any other matter for which proceedings could or ought to have been taken under that Act. The dispute in the present case is whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the benefit of irrigation of the plots allotted to them from this well. We are not aware of any provision of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and our attention was not invited to any, under which the Plaintiffs could have applied to the Consolidation authorities for appropriate relief on such a ground. The present suit does not raise any title dispute in respect of the plot or even the well. Since no proceedings entitling the Plaintiffs to the relief claimed in the present suit could have been taken under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the present suit cannot be held to be barred by Section 49 thereof. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.