JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of his one-third share in two plots viz., plots Nos. 246 and 247 (area .58 acres) situate in village Tighra. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed. The appeal was allowed in respect of plot No. 247 and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed under the orders of the appellate court. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate court the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 2. It is undisputed that consolidation proceedings took place in the village. The dispute between the parties went up to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal. The appellate order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is dated 28-3-1961. In the judgment it is observed as follows: - "During spot inspection it is found that plot No. 247 (0.58 acres) was wrongly recorded as abadi. In fact this portion is grove of Ajodhya Singh and Baijnath Singh. The plots are, therefore, recorded as grove of Ajodhya, Singh and others (the appellants). The appeal is partly allowed as per adjustment mentioned below. A copy of this order is to be sent to C. O. Mani Ram for Amaldaramad." It appears that despite the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the land was recorded in the name of Ajodhya Singh and others and the name of Baijnath Singh and others, the plaintiffs, was not recorded over the land in suit as bhumidhars. 3. The appellate court was of the view that plot No. 247 was not abadi and that the entry in CH. Form No. 45 that it was the bhumidhari of the defendants alone was final and binding oh the civil courts. Aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate court the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that in view of the judgment of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the relevant extracts of whose judgment have been quoted above, it is clear that both the plaintiffs and the defendants were held to be co-bhumidhars. The entry made subsequently to the decision of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation showing the defendants alone as bhumidhars was obviously incorrect. This entry according to the learned counsel is not binding on the civil Court. The entry made subsequently to the decision of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation showing the defendants alone as bhumidhars was obviously incorrect. This entry according to the learned counsel is not binding on the civil Court. Section 27 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act runs as follows: - "All entries in the record-of-rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved." In this case the learned counsel submits it is proved that the entries are not true. According to him they did not faithfully represent the effect of the decision of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has clearly held that both the plaintiffs and the defendants are co-bhumidhars. In this view of the matter the learned counsel is correct in his submission. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation has stated that both the plaintiffs and the defendants are co-bhumidhars. This decision is final between the parties. The entries made subsequent to the decision of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, which are inconsistent with that decision, cannot take away the rights of the plaintiff. Tire judgment of the lower appellate court in this regard, therefore, cannot be sustained. 4. The plaintiff had instituted the suit in the civil Court treating the land as Abadi. The findings of the lower appellate court is that it is agricultural land and on the basis that it is agricultural land, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suit for partition would lie only in the revenue court, and the civil court had no jurisdiction to grant any relief. The argument would have been accepted and the plaint returned for presentation to the proper court, but in view of the provisions of Section 331 (1-A) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the argument cannot be accepted. The argument would have been accepted and the plaint returned for presentation to the proper court, but in view of the provisions of Section 331 (1-A) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the argument cannot be accepted. Section 331 (1-A) provides as follows: - "Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), an objection that a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II, or as the case may be, a civil court, which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or proceeding, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in case where issues are settled, at or before settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice." Issue No. 2 framed by the trial court was as follows: - "whether the suit is not triable by this Court." This issue was framed on the basis that the defendant was pleading that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. No plea was taken that the suit did not lie in civil court and] the proper forum was the revenue court. Furthermore no prejudice has been shown on the part of the defendant respondent. Thus, the plea that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decree the suit cannot succeed. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The plaintiffs suit for partition of his one-third share in plot No. 247 is decreed. Parties will bear their own costs.