JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. -The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming the plot No. 2537 area 2 Bighas was in the Zamindari of one Akhmal Khan. He migrated to Pakistan. In the meantime the plot was divided into two portions: one portion measuring 15 Biswa was shown as cultivated land and the remaining area was recorded as grove. 2. This area 15 Biswa was recorded as Khudkast of the Zamindar Mohammad Akhmal Khan. After he migrated to Pakistan the Custodian Evacuee Property started proceeding and thereupon the plaintiff filed suit under section 59 of the U. P. Tenancy Act for a declaration that he was a hereditary tenant of the 15 Biswa area. That suit was decreed in his favour. The suit was filed . against the Custodian as well as the Evacuee. Consequently the Custodian Evacuee Property moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the litigation ended there. The decree dated 25-3-1952 under Section 59 of the U. P. Tenancy Act became final in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently, in the year 1953 the Assistant Custodian Evacuee Property started proceedings against the plaintiff. Objections were filed by them, and the Custodian rejected the objection holding that the plaintiffs father had no right and he was in unauthorised occupation thereof. The matter was taken up in revision to the Custodian General and it was dismissed on 27-6-1958. A writ petition was filed before the Punjab High Court which was also dismissed on 9-3-1964. 3. On 28-6-1965 Managing Officer Meerut Division issued notice to the plaintiff under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re- habilitation) Act, 1954. The plaintiff thereupon served a notice under Section 80, C. P. C. on the defendants and : filed the instant suit. The suit has been dismissed by both the courts below holding that the decree dated 25-3-1952 under Section 59 of the U. P. Tenancy Act was not binding on the Custodian and was without jurisdiction. The lower appellate court was not justified in ignoring the case reported in 1965 All WR (HC) 385 : (1965 All LJ 563), Achchu Khan v. Assistant Custodian. In that suit it was held that any decree under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act was not barred and was binding on the Custodian. The lower appellate court was not justified in ignoring the case reported in 1965 All WR (HC) 385 : (1965 All LJ 563), Achchu Khan v. Assistant Custodian. In that suit it was held that any decree under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act was not barred and was binding on the Custodian. That judgment could not be brushed aside by the court below lightly. It was certainly binding on it and the court below was not right in trying to sit in judgment over it. 4. I accordingly hold that the plaintiff was a hereditary tenant in pursuance of the decree dated 25-3-19521 passed against the Custodian. 5. The question now arises what relief can be granted to the plaintiff in the instant case after his objections were rejected by the Custodian and his writ petition failed. Special provisions have been made for Evacuee Property, in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under Section 26-B the provisions applicable to the Evacuee Property have been included in Schedule V of the aforesaid Act. It is true that the plaintiff had a declaration in respect of 15 Biswas about his being hereditary tenant thereof and he could be treated as such under Section 16 of the Act. He could be treated as such only if he applied under the provisions of Paragraph 2 (a) of Schedule V. It is on the record that the plaintiff deposited 10 times rent and acquired Bhumidhari rights under the U. P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act and the learned counsel argued that he having become Bhumidhar was not required to prove any thing further. Under paragraph 2 (1) (a) the plaintiff was required to deposit a further amount equal to 5 times the rent before 31st Dec., 1957. On the deposit being made the amount deposited under the U. P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act and the amount deposited by him should have been transferred to the Custodian under clause 6 para 2. The plaintiff, thereafter could have been treated as a Bhumidhar under clause 3 of para 2. Admittedly this was not done. Consequently the plaintiff forfeited his right under Clause 4 of Para 2. 6. Para. 4-B and para. The plaintiff, thereafter could have been treated as a Bhumidhar under clause 3 of para 2. Admittedly this was not done. Consequently the plaintiff forfeited his right under Clause 4 of Para 2. 6. Para. 4-B and para. 6 of the aforesaid Schedule provide that the Custodian of the Evacuee Property was the competent authority to decide the rights of the persons claiming to be Bhumidhar, Sirdar and Adhivasi. Admittedly in the instant case such rights were claimed and were negatived by the Custodian. The Act further provided that if such rights were not already decided by the Custodian. the matter could be referred to him. Under these circumstances, in spite of the fact that the defendants became hereditary tenant he lost his rights subsequently under Sch. V of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and is not entitled to any relief. I need not enter the other questions raised in the court below. 7. In the circumstances, the present appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.