JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member. - This is a revision filed by Rajmani and Mahadeo against the judgment and order dated 1.8.1979 passed by Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division affirming the order of the trial court in a suit under section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiffs Sri Ram and others had filed a suit under Section 229-B/209 U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act in the trial court. An objection was taken on behalf of defendants that the suit was barred by section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Upon it an issue was struck on this point which was decided as a preliminary issue by the trial court. After hearing the parties the trial court gave a finding that the suit was not barred by section 49 U.P.C.H. Act. Against this a revision was filed by Rajmani and others and the trial court. Hence, this second revision before the Board. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It is borne out from the record that plaintiffs claimed themselves as Bhumidhars of the land on the basis of an alleged sale deed executed in their favour by Ram Adhin on 9.2.73. The defendants also claimed themselves to be bhumidhars of the land in suit on the basis of a sale deed executed in their favour by Ram Adhin on 9.2.73. The defendants also claimed themselves to be bhumidhars of the land in suit on the basis of a sale deed executed in their favour by Ram Adhin on 12.6.73. The defendants names were mutated before the consolidation authorities. The plaintiffs application for mutation was rejected. Now, the case therefore centres round the point of law as to whether under the circumstances the subsequent suit of the plaintiffs for declaration was barred by section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or not. 5. Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act runs as follows:- "49. The plaintiffs application for mutation was rejected. Now, the case therefore centres round the point of law as to whether under the circumstances the subsequent suit of the plaintiffs for declaration was barred by section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or not. 5. Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act runs as follows:- "49. Notwithstanding any thing contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued under sub-section(2) of Section 4, or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceedings could or ought to have been taken under this Act,shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that it was not barred by section 49 U.P.C.H. Act because the proceedings under section 12 C.H. Act were only summary in nature which could not decide title. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the revisionists argued that the rights of the parties were determined in application under section 12, C.H. Act. The names of the revisionists were mutated which continued and no objection later on was filed by the plaintiffs and, therefore, it become binding. 7. Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act reads as follows:- "12 (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 where a progress, may be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as and when they arise, 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 mutatis mutandis, apply to the hearing and decisions of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid sections." Sub-section (2) of section 12, C.H. Act is very materials as it provides that provisions of sections 7 to 11 shall apply to hearing and decisions of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid sections. Thus, it is clear from the scheme of Consolidation of Holdings that Assistant Consolidation Officer shall correct all clerical mistakes and also other disputes discovered under section 8 in respect thereof within the meaning of section 9 clause(a) of said Act and he shall send the disputed cases to the Consolidation Officer for disposal. The annual registers shall be revised accordingly on the basis of such orders passed under section 10 of the Said Act. Section 11 provides for appeal from the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or Consolidation Officer to the Settlement Officer Consolidation and this section provides that the decision thereon given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law. 8. I have carefully considered the point in issue. I am of the view that even in applications under Section 12, C.H. Act the rights of the parties are determined. The names of the defendants, now the revisionists, were mutated and even at later stage no objection was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite parties and, therefore, it could not be challenged now. Similarly, the plaintiffs application for mutation was rejected and they did not press it further and, therefore, they are precluded in that regard also. 9. My attention was drawn to the pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court reported in Prahlad v. Bhavi Chand, 1974 A.W.R. at page 209 in Second Appeal No. 1748 of 1968. In that case the plaintiff had taken a plea of adoption in an application under section 12, C.H. Act. It stood rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court held that fresh suit by the plaintiff claiming himself as adopted son before Civil Court was barred by section 49 C.H. Act. 10. In that case the plaintiff had taken a plea of adoption in an application under section 12, C.H. Act. It stood rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and, therefore, the Hon'ble High Court held that fresh suit by the plaintiff claiming himself as adopted son before Civil Court was barred by section 49 C.H. Act. 10. I find that a similar view was held by the Board in its decision reported in "Ram Niwas v. Bandhidhar, 1977 R.D. at page 331 in Second Appeal No. 15 of 1973-74. wherein it was held by the Board that if the title of parties has been determined under section 12, C.H. Act, a fresh suit under section 229-B by the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of section 49 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Similar view was further held by the Board in its decision reported in Sahdeo v. Parsottam, 1978 RD at page 358 in Second Appeal No. 787 of 1968-69. 11. A similar point arose before the High Court of Allahabad in "Yad Ram Singh v. Board of Revenue, Civil Misc. Writ No. 3 of 1970 in which it was held by Hon'ble Justice K.N. Singh as follows:- "Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was amended by U.P. Act No. 38 of 1958. The amended Act lays down that if before the issue of notification under section 52 on the completion of the consolidation operations any transfer of rights is effected or if inheritance is claimed, the matter can be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and that question, if so raised, shall be decided as an objection is decided under the proceedings under sections 7 to 9 of the Act. The question of title could, therefore, be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. There is no bar contained in the Act against rising of a question of title after the allotment of chaks has been made. Section 12 makes it clear that if an objection is field at any stage before the issue of notification under section 52, it shall be entertained and tried in the manner in which an objection relating to title to land is decide under the Act". 12. In this case also the position is similar. Section 12 makes it clear that if an objection is field at any stage before the issue of notification under section 52, it shall be entertained and tried in the manner in which an objection relating to title to land is decide under the Act". 12. In this case also the position is similar. The opposite party's application for mutation of their names under Section 12, C.H. Act was rejected by the Consolidation authorities, whereas the mutation application of the defendant-revisionists was allowed and their names had been recorded in the consolidation records and the plaintiffs did not file any objection at the stage of section 20. The suit of the plaintiffs was, therefore, barred by section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and they could not bring any suit for declaration of their rights in any Civil or Revenue Court. 13. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiffs suit was clearly barred by the provisions of section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, and the courts below erred in holding otherwise. The revision is accordingly allowed and the orders of courts below are set aside.