JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - This is a plaintiffs appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming that he was the owner in possession of various properties including house and open land mentioned in the plaint. He further claimed that plot no. 82/1 area 10 links was cultivated by him prior to abolition of zamindari and had become Khudkast. After enforcement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, he became Bhumidhar thereof. He claimed an injunction against the Gaon Sabha and others restraining them from interfering with plaintiffs possession over the plot. In paragraph 2 of the written statement filed by the defendant no. 1 and other on behalf of defendants nos. 4 to 8, it was denied that disputed plot no. 82 was ever cultivated. The possession of the plaintiff over the same was also disputed. The suit was decreed by the trial court but the lower appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree and recorded a finding of fact that the sale deed on which the plaintiff relied was not genuine. About plot no. 82/1, however it held that the plaintiff claimed Shikmi plot no. 145 as the disputed plot, but he could not connect plot no. 82/1 with that plot. The Khasra and Khatauni of 1359F are on record as Exhibits 5 and 6. From a perusal of these documents it appears that this plot is entered as khudkast of the plaintiff. Under the circumstances the situation of plot no. 145 was not at all material and the court below was not entitled to dismiss the suit relating to this plot on the ground that it was not tallied with plot no. 145. 2. Khudkast rights could be obtained by the plaintiff even if the disputed land 82/1 was not covered by the sale deed or even if its possession was obtained by the plaintiff in spite of the sale-deed. The exhibits 5 and 6 certainly show that this plot was cultivated by the plaintiff prior to abolition of zamindari. Under the circumstances the finding of the court below has to be set aside. If the plaintiff is found to be a bhumidhar of the said plot he was entitled to an injunction against the defendants. Under the circumstances the finding of the court below relating to this plot alone is set aside and the case is sent down to it for deciding the case afresh. If the plaintiff is found to be a bhumidhar of the said plot he was entitled to an injunction against the defendants. Under the circumstances the finding of the court below relating to this plot alone is set aside and the case is sent down to it for deciding the case afresh. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the consolidation operations are going on in the village. However, there is no record to support the same. As such the question may be agitated before the court below.