JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. -This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for demolition of certain constructions made by the defendants on a plot of land No. 121 having an area 0.34 acres of village Kataria, Pargana Kant, Tahsil Sadar, district Shahjahanpur. Possession and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from making any further construction in future were also claimed. 2. The trial court decreed the suit but the lower appellate court has dismissed it on the view that it was barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. According to the plaintiffs case set out in the plaint, they were the bhumidhars in possession of the land. The land was demarcated as Abadi during the consolidation proceedings and they became owners thereof The defendants Nos. 1,2, and 5 alone defended the suit. It proceeded ex parte against defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6. The defendants case was that the land had been reserved for Abadi in the consolidation proceedings and thus belonged to the Gaon Sabha, and that the contesting defendants had been allotted portions of it by the Gaon Sabha on 16th Jan. 1966 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and that they had constructed boundary walls and dug foundations for construction of their houses thereon. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were said to be unnecessary parties. Defendant No. 4 was even said to be in collusion with the plaintiffs. The bar of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was also raised. The trial court framed as many as 6 issues of which the material issues were the first two, namely, (1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the land in dispute; and (2) Whether the suit is barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiffs on both the issues and decreed the suit accordingly. The lower appellate court did not go into the question of the plaintiffs title to the land. The trial court found in favour of the plaintiffs on both the issues and decreed the suit accordingly. The lower appellate court did not go into the question of the plaintiffs title to the land. It held that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite the provisions of S. 331 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, but on an interpretation of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it came to the conclusion that the suit was barred thereby and in the result allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the only question which has been raised before me, namely, whether the suit could be said to be barred [by S. 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, I find that the land in suit of which the old plot number was 276 and its new number was 121 and the area 0.34 acres, was found to be Abadi land by the consolidation authorities, vide-entries in C. H. Form No. 41, Ext. II. Although the said document shows that new khata Khatauni number relating to the land was 198, the entries of the Khatauni have not been filed so that it cannot be said whether the land was held by the plaintiffs as the owners or that it vested in the Gaon Sabha as Abadi land. Obviously the land would have been entered differently, if it had been held to be the bhumidhari holding of the plaintiffs Nevertheless my attention was not invited to anything on the record which may show either that the land was held by the plaintiffs as a tenure holder or vested in the Gaon Sabha as Abadi land. The only thing which is clear from the said entry in C. H. Form No. 41, Ext. II, is that the land was Abadi. It was not agricultural land and unless it was shown that it was held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming, it could not be said that it was land within the meaning of definition of land contained in Cl. (5) of Section 3 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. (5) of Section 3 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It follows that on the material on i(he record, there could be no question of non-suiting the plaintiffs on account of the bar created by Section 49 of the U. P-Consolidation of Holdings Act. The bar operates in respect of declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land, or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings. Consolidation proceedings can be taken only in respect of land as defined in Cl. (5) of Section 3 of the U. P-Consolidation of Holdings Act. I say nothing about the provisions of S. 27 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for there could be a case where what was agricultural land to begin with was in the consolidation scheme reserved for the purposes of Abadi by the consolidation authorities and if that were so, the record of rights, annual register, the map and the other documents prepared by the consolidation authorities will be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved under Section 27 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The result is that this appeal must succeed and the judgment mid decree of the lower appellate court must be set aside, but inasmuch as the lower appellate court dismissed the suit merely on a technical ground and did not go into the question of the plaintiffs title to the land and the other questions, if any, which could arise before granting or refusing to grant a decree to the plaintiffs, I remand the matter to the lower appellate court for a fresh hearing of the appeal before it on the merits. The costs in this court shall abide the result. The plaintiff-appellants shall be entitled to refund of the court-fees paid by them in this Court.