JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated October 14, 1974 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad in Appeal (Restoration) No. 710 of 1974 arising from order dated February 15, 1971 passed by Judicial Officer (R) Gonda in case no. 1019 Smt. Rasoolan v. Gani and others under section 229-B U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Respondent no. 1, Srimati Rasoolan had filed a suit under Section 229-B/209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming to be the sirdar of certain plots as the widow of Ali Bux, the previous tenure-holder and seeking the ejectment of the defendant Ghani as a trespasser, Ghani, on the other hand, claimed to be the heir of Ali Bux, deceased as his nephew had alleged that Srimati Rasoolan was not in any related to Ali Bux but was the wife, one Wali Mohammad. He claimed to in legitimate possession of the land as heir of Ali Bux. The trial court by its order dated February 15, 1971 decreed the suit. The lower appellate court by its order dated October 14, 1974 has upheld that order of the trial court, Ghani has now come up in second appeal before this Court. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit was barred by Section 49 and 11-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the appellant's name was ordered as the sole heir of Ali bux during consolidation proceedings. The courts below have recorded that the name of the defendant-appellant was mutate in place of Ali Bux in the consolidation proceedings but have held that the suit was not barred by Section, 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it was settled law that mutation proceedings are not final. On this point the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Prahlad and others v. Bhavi Chand and others in which, Mr. Yasodanandan, J. has observed as follows:- "Sub-S.(2) of S. 12 makes applicable the provisions of S. 7 to 11 mutatis mutandis by legal fiction to the hearing and decision of the matters raised u/s sub-S. (1). On this point the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Prahlad and others v. Bhavi Chand and others in which, Mr. Yasodanandan, J. has observed as follows:- "Sub-S.(2) of S. 12 makes applicable the provisions of S. 7 to 11 mutatis mutandis by legal fiction to the hearing and decision of the matters raised u/s sub-S. (1). Objections raises u/s S. 9(2) are objections with regard to title to agricultural land lying in an area in respect of which a notification u/s 4 has been issued. Such objections regarding title have to be decided either u/s. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 9-A or u/s sub-Sec. (2) there of as the case might be sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 9-A provides that Asst. Consolidation Officer while actin u/s Sub-sec. (2) be deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction. The consequences of sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 12 read with the provisions mentioned above is that an objection u/s Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 12 has the same legal effect and significance as an objection u/s sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 9 and a decision therein is in the eye of law a decision having the same effect as on e either u/s Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 9-A of u/s Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 9-A. Such a decision will by reasons of sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 9-A read with Sec. 12 be deemed to be decision by a competent court will regard to questions of titled. It is thus clear that the application u/s Sec.12 made by the plaintiff-respondent was with regard to a matter which could be raised and decided by authorities constituted under, the Act. It is thus plain that Sec. 49 was clearly attracted and the suit instituted by the plaintiff's-respondents stood barred by reason of that provisions. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable. The decrees of the courts below consequently cannot be sustained." The learned counsel has also referred to Tej Singh v. Deputy Directors of Consolidation and others 1974 A.W.R. 209 at 211-212, in which Mr. Satish Chandra, J., has observed as follows:- "The Deputy Director seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that an application under section 12 is for mutation only. That is not so. Satish Chandra, J., has observed as follows:- "The Deputy Director seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that an application under section 12 is for mutation only. That is not so. Under Section 12, all matters relating to changes and transfer affecting any of the rights of interest recorded in the revised records may be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as and when they arise, provided the cause of action for it had not arisen when proceedings under Section 7 to 9 were started or were in progress. Under Sub-Section (2) of section 12, the provisions of Section 7 to 11 shall apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under Sub-Sec. (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid sections. Thus, sections 7 to 11 of the act apply to matter Governed by section 12. Then, under Sub-section (1) of Section 12, all matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights recorded in the revised records can be raised. Such matters are not which affect only possession. They are matters to which also affect tittle of the parties to the plots under consolidation proceedings. They are not like mutation proceedings under the Land revenue Act. Under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, disputes as to title have to be gone into and decided. The learned counsel has further referred to Mangat Singh v. Board of Revenue U.P., and others, Unreported Revenue cases 1974 p. 184 at p. 188, in which the same Judge has observed as follows: "Consequently, after the coming into force of the 1958 Amending Act, the position is that proceedings for declaration or adjudication of rights of succession to a tenure-holder are provided for by the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Consequently Section 49 would bar the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue courts from entertaining suit for such a declaration of adjudication. In the present case the proceedings before the consolidation authorities were under Section 12 of the Act. They were decided after a regular trial. Consequently Section 49 would bar the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue courts from entertaining suit for such a declaration of adjudication. In the present case the proceedings before the consolidation authorities were under Section 12 of the Act. They were decided after a regular trial. The findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation would therefore, be deemed to have been rendered in a regular proceedings for declaration and adjudication of rights and would operate as res-judicata as well." The learned counsel has further referred to Avadhesh Kumar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, Unreported Revenue Cases 1974 400 at 404, in which M.H. Beg, J. has observed as in which M.H. Beg, J., has observed as follows:- "An argument was put forward on behalf of the petitioner based on Smt. Natho v. Board of Revenue 1966 R.D. 170. There it was held that the jurisdiction of the ordinary revenue courts had not barred by mutation proceedings under the Act. It was held there that section 9 of the act barred the jurisdiction of the courts or authorities, other than those set up by the Act, to decided questions of right and title if they had been decided under sections 9, 10, 11 of the Act, but not by merely mutation orders passed subsequent to the confirmation of the statement of proposals under Section 23 of the Act Reference was also made to Thakur Sant Bux Singh v. S.C. Singh, 1965 A.W.R. 416, Smt. Amajadi v. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1963 R.D. 62, and Kusher v. Amad Khan 1962 A.W.R. 391. These are all cases in which there were merely mutation orders. Section 12 sub-section (2) of the Act, however, makes it clear that the effect of adjudication under that provision is the same as that of adjudication under section 11 of the Act. Section 12(2) applies the provisions of section 7 to 11 of the Act of proceedings under section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the orders of the consolidation authorities in the instant case were not merely mutation orders. The cases cited were distinguishable on this ground." 5. Section 12(2) applies the provisions of section 7 to 11 of the Act of proceedings under section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the orders of the consolidation authorities in the instant case were not merely mutation orders. The cases cited were distinguishable on this ground." 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, referred to Husain Abbas v. Brij Lal 1965 R.D., p. 406 in which the following observation have been made: "Under section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are applicable and at the stage of consolidation proceedings a consolidation authority is concerned solely with the question of possession. If any such erroneous finding has been give by the consolidation court, that would merely be treated as an observation and would have no binding force in law. It can be disregarded by courts of law and would not affect the rights of the person so far as the question of title is concerned." The same view has been held in Thakur Sant Bux Singh v. S.C. Singh, Dy. Director of Consolidation Lucknow and others 1965 R.D., p. 417, in which the following observation has been made:- "It is not competent for consolidation authorities to determined questions of title in proceedings under Section 27 and hence any decision given by them on a question of title in such proceedings is not binding on, and can very well be ignored by courts of law. The remedy of a person if he feels aggrieved by a decision on question of title in proceedings under section 27 of the Act is by way of a regular suit in a court of competent jurisdiction rather than by way of a writ petition. Sections 49 would not come in the way if a person decides to file a regular suit to establish his title." 6. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are earlier. The subsequent decisions of the High Court after certain amendments have been made in the U.P. it clear that even in such a case the order of mutation passed by a consolidation Courts bars the jurisdiction of revenue of civil courts. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent are earlier. The subsequent decisions of the High Court after certain amendments have been made in the U.P. it clear that even in such a case the order of mutation passed by a consolidation Courts bars the jurisdiction of revenue of civil courts. I would, therefore, hold that the suit was barred under section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the courts below have taken an erroneous view of law in holding otherwise. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken a number of other-grounds including that the finding of the courts below that Srimati Rasool was the widow of Ali Bux was vitiated under law and was based on no evidence at all that the alleged will was a forged document and was not proved in accordance with law. These grounds need not be considered as they relate to the merits of the case. As the suit itself was barred under Section 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, this court has not jurisdiction to go into the merits. 8. Accordingly I set aside the orders of the courts below and order that the suit be dismissed as it was barred under Section 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.