JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 23, 1973 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur in appeal against the judgment and decree dated September 27, 1971 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Gorakhpur in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Banshi Dhar, plaintiff, filed two suits Nos. 420 and 421 under Section 220-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against Ram Niwas and others. Both the suits were contested by the defendants on different grounds. The trial court framed several issues in the cases and out of them issue No. 5 was framed as under:- Issue No. 5:- Whether the suit is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 3. On September 27, 1971, the trial court dismissed the suits on the ground that they were barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 4. Plaintiff filed 2 appeals before the Additional Commissioner. Subsequently he, however, withdrew suit No. 420 in respect of village Dhusva Kala and so the judgment of the Additional Commissioner is in respect of the appeal in suit No. 421 of village Hathiya Garn Jangli only. 5. On November 23, 1973, the Additional Commissioner set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remanded the case to it for disposal on merits according to law holding that the proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act as amended by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 were mutation proceedings only and there was no determination of right and title in those proceedings and consequently the present suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was not barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 6. It is not disputed that the consolidation proceedings took place in respect of the land in dispute. It is also not disputed that Jag Dut the original tenure-holder died on January 17, 1964 and the proceedings for the changes in the records took place during the consolidation proceedings under the amended Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. It is also not disputed that the said proceedings under the amended Section 12 were fought out between the parties up to the High Court and the decision in those proceedings was against the plaintiff. 7. It is also not disputed that the said proceedings under the amended Section 12 were fought out between the parties up to the High Court and the decision in those proceedings was against the plaintiff. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the dispute between the parties in respect of the land in suit on the death of the original tenure-holder Jag Dut was finally decided in the proceedings under the amended Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act up to the stage of the High Court and the decision was against the plaintiff. He further argued that in the proceedings under the amended Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, the title of the parties in the disputed land was also determined. He further argued that the present regular suit, therefore, to re-agitate the right and title of the parties in the disputed land is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. He contended that the interpretation of Section 12 of the amended C.H. Act by the Additional Commissioner is not correct. He placed reliance on the case Prahlad and others v. Bhavi Chand and others, A.W.R. 1974 p. 209 in which it was held that:- "Even after a consolidation scheme has been confirmed under Section 23 a party has a right to apply under Section 12 of the Act. It has to be borne in mind that in an application under Section 12 of the Act the title of the original tenure-holder is not challenged and therefore the finality of proceedings from Section 9 to 11 or of the consolidation scheme confirmed under Section 23 is not disturbed. All that is done in such proceedings is that the claim of the successor of the deceased tenure-holder or the transferee or the transferor or the transferor tenure-holder is accepted and his name is brought on the record or the same is rejected." His Lordship also observed that:- "It is thus clear that the application under Section 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 Section 49 was clearly attracted and the suit instituted by the plaintiff respondent stood barred by reasons of that provisions." The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the case Mahendra Singh v. Gokul Singh etc., 1975 R.D. 40 in which it was held that under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act the disputes as to the title have also to be gone into and decided. The learned Member also held that the dispute as to the title in the disputed land having been decided under the amended Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, the same matter could not be re agitated afresh and the suit was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the proceedings under Section 12 of the C.H. Act as amended by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 were merely mutation proceedings and did not bar a regular suit for assertion of title. He placed reliance on the decision in the case Smt. Bhuria v. Board of Revenue, 1970 R.D. 466 (H.C.) in support of his contention. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following observations contained in the judgment mentioned above:- "In my opinion, Section 49 bars only such claims which can be adjudicated during the consolidation operations. In view of Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act a claim which arises or accrues after the consolidation scheme has been confirmed under Section 23 cannot be adjudicated by the consolidation authorities. The title claimed by Smt. Bhuria accrued only after the death of Suggan. While he was alive she had no right at all. On his death she became entitled to inherit the holding along with his widow. The cause of action for this claim accrued after proceedings under Section 7 and 9, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had been compleated and thus, investigation into this claim by the consolidation authorities was barred by Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Consequently, Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act could not bar adjudication of such a claim in the regular courts." He also place reliance on the Division Bench decision of the High Court in Smt. Natho v. Board of Revenue, 1966 R.D. 170. 9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. 9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. It is true that his Lordship made the observation referred to above in the case Smt. Bhuria v. Board of Revenue, 1970 R.D. 466. These observations do not however, appear to have formed the basis of the decision as is clear from the following observations contained in the same judgment: "The mutation proceedings conducted by the Assit. C.O. were covered by Sections 5 and 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, under which the maintenance of the record had been entrusted to those authorities till the notification of the village under Section 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Mutation proceedings were not intended to investigate into question of title." It appears from the judgment that his Lordships decided the case on the basis that there was no proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act and the claim of Mst. Bhuria was covered by Section 5 and 27 of the Act. Section 12 of the C.H. Act as it stands after the amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 runs as follows:- "(1) All matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights or interests recorded in the revised records published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 for which a cause of action had not arisen when proceedings under Section 7 to 9 were started or were in progress may be raised before the Assistant C.O. as and when they arose but not later than the date of Notification under Section 52 or under sub-section (1) of Section 6. (2) The provisions of Section 7 to 11 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid section." Section 12 of the Act does not provide that an application under that provision cannot be made after the consolidation scheme has been confirmed under Section 23. The only limitation provided by Section 12 is that a claim under that provision must be made before a notification under Section 52 or under sub-section (1) of Section 6 has been issued. The only limitation provided by Section 12 is that a claim under that provision must be made before a notification under Section 52 or under sub-section (1) of Section 6 has been issued. It does not appear that after a consolidation scheme has been confirmed under Section 23 a party has no right to apply under Section 12 of the Act, the title of the original tenure-holder is not challenged and, therefore, the finality of proceedings from Sections 9 to 11 or of the consolidation scheme confirmed under Section 23 is not disturbed. The Division Bench case Mst. Natho v. Board of Revenue (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent also does not apply to this case. In that decision there is no reference at all to Section 12 of the Act. The case before the Division Bench was not for determination of title in proceedings under Section 12 but for mere mutation. The plaintiff-respondent had no cause of action when the proceedings under Sections 7 to 9 of the Act tool place. During those proceedings Jag Dut the original tenure-holder was alive and his rights were determined. He ultimately died on January 17, 1964 when the amended Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act was enforced. The cause of action in favour of the plaintiff arose when Jag Dut died on January 17, 1964. He then acquired the right to file an application under Section 12(1) of the Act and the right to do so continued as long as notification under Section 52 or sub-section (1) of Section 6 was not issued. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 makes the provisions of Sections 7 to 11 applicable mutatis mutandis to the hearing and decision of the matters raised under sub-section (1) of Section 12. Objections raised under Section 9(2) regarding title have to be decided either under sub-section (1) of Section 9-A or under sub-section (2) thereof as the case might be. An objection under sub-section (1) of Section 12 has the same legal effect as an objection under sub-section (2) of Section 9 and the decision therein will have the same effect as one under sub-section (2) of Section 9-A. The decision under Section 12 will be deemed to be a decision by a competent court with regard to question of title. The application under Section 12 made by the plaintiff was with regard to the matter which could be raised and decided by the authorities constituted under the C.H. Act. The result is that Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act was attracted and the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 10. In the case Tej Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (Vol. 1) Unreported Revenue Case page 82 his Lordship observed that:- "The Dy. 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 transfers affecting any of the rights and interest recorded in the revised records may be raised before the Asstt. C.O. as and when they arise provided the causes of action for it had not arisen when proceedings under Sections 7 to 9 were started and were in progress. Under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the provision of Sections 7 to 11 shall apply to the hearing and decisions of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid section. Thus Sections 7 to 11 of the Act apply to a 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 revs id records can be raised. Such matter are not which affect only possession. They are matters which also affect title of the parties to the plots under consolidation proceedings they are not like mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act. Under Section 12 of Consolidation of Holdings Act disputes as to title has to be gone into and decided." 11. A similar view was expressed by his Lordship: in Magat Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad Unreported Case Vol. 1 P. 184. A similar view was taken by his Lordship in Yad Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue, Unreported revenue case Vol. 1 p. 567. The view taken by me finds support from the case Prahlad v. Bhavi Chand, 1974 A.W.R. 209, Tej Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra), Magat Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad (supra), Yad Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue (supra) and Mahendra Singh v. Gokul Singh (supra). 1 p. 567. The view taken by me finds support from the case Prahlad v. Bhavi Chand, 1974 A.W.R. 209, Tej Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra), Magat Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad (supra), Yad Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue (supra) and Mahendra Singh v. Gokul Singh (supra). The title of the parties in the land in dispute having been determined in proceedings under Section 12 as amended by Act VIII of 1963 the decisions in those proceedings are final and conclusive between the parties and cannot now be challenged. The result is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The learned lower appellate court erred in remanding the case for decision afresh. I, accordingly set aside the judgment and decree dated November 23, 1973 passed by the lower appellate court and maintain the judgment and decree dated September 27, 1971 passed by the trial court. The appeal is allowed with costs in the light of the above observations.