JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - Plaintiff-Appellant Indra jeet Singh son of Sardar Pooran Singh filed a suit for injunction against the defendants Sardar Arjun Singh and others in respect of plot No. 240-M, area 1 Biswa 0 Biswansis towards north praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession over the said suit land. The plaintiff based his claim in respect of land, ' in suit on the basis of a lease and Izazatnama dated 25th Mar., 1971 executed by Gaon Sabha in his favour. It was urged that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the land in suit and they are illegally trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendants denying the plaint allegations and it was asserted that the defendants are in possession over the land in suit and plaintiff has no concern with it. It was further pleaded that in the year 1960, defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs father Sardar Pooran Singh had decided to start time business Jointly and for the purpose they had jointly purchased land of plot Nos. 240 and 241 from one Brij Basi Lal through registered sale deed dated 17th Aug., 1960 for a sum of Rs. 2,200/- . It was further asserted that since the said land was not sufficient for the said work and as such 3 Biswas of plot No. 240 was taken by them jointly through sale deed dated 16th Aug., 1960. The defendants asserted that on said land Pooran Singh and Arjun Singh continued to do their lime business without any hindrance. The village was brought under Consolidation operations and during consolidation operations it was revealed that Pooran Singh got his name alone secretly recorded in the revenue records and so on coming to know about the wrong entry defendant No. I filed objection asserting that his name be also recorded on land in question as co-tenure holder. The said objection, which was filed under S. 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was decided on the basis of compromise dated 19th Sept., 1969 and on its basis half portion of plots namely plot No. 240 area 3 biswas and plot No. 241 area 5 biswas towards north, on which no constructions were situated was given to defendant No. I exclusively. It measured east-west 80 feet and north-south 83 feet 3 inches and on the basis of said compromise, which was scribed by plaintiff himself, who is son of Pooran Singh, the case was decided by the Consolidation Officer. The defendants further asserted that in order to grab the land belonging to defendant No. 1, as aforesaid, the plaintiff filed the present suit basing his claim on an alleged fictitious lease izazatnama said to have been executed by Gaon Sabha. The trial Court, after taking evidence of parties dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24th Nov., 1976. Aggrieved by the said decree, the plaintiff/appellant preferred appeal which too was dismissed by District Judge, Sultanpur on 20th May, 1977. Plaintiff-appellant has preferred this second appeal against the said impugned decisions. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that the land in suit was let out by Gaon Sabha to the plaintiff through registered Izazatnama dated 17th May, 1971. According to him since the land in suit belonged to Gaon Sabha and as such Gaon Sabha could validly let out the land to the plaintiff for making constructions thereon. He, thus, contended that the Courts below have legally erred in holding that the plaintiff had got no title in the land in suit. He further urged that the plaintiff was not bound by the compromise order passed by the Consolidation authorities because the land in question was Abadi land and as such consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to entertain objection in respect of it. He, thus, urged that the compromise dated 19th Sept., 1969 filed before the Consolidation Officer is not binding on the plaintiff, although the same was scribed by the plaintiff. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the aforesaid arguments and have perused the impugned judgments very carefully. I have also gone through various documents referred to by learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant regarding litigation before the Consolidation authorities as well as the Izazatnama executed by Gaon Sabha and various resolutions passed by the Gaon Sabha in respect of the land in suit. I, however, find no substance in the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. 4. I, however, find no substance in the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant. 4. It is not disputed that compromise dated 19th Sept., 1969, Exhibit A-1, was scribed by the plaintiff himself and on the basis of said compromise, objection filed by defendant No.1 was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 29th Sept., 1969 and name of defendant No. 1 Sardar Arjun Singh was recorded in relevant revenue records prepared during consolidation operations. Exhibit A-4 is extract of C. H. Form No. 23 in which name of defendant No. 1 is recorded as tenure-holder of plot No. 240/1 area 1 biswa 5 biswansis and plot No. 240/2-M area 5 biswansis. Thus a total area of 1 Biswa 10 biswansis of plot No. 240 was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 in C. H. Form No. 23. This entry in respect of the land in suit is in the name of defendant No. 1. Name of defendant No. 1 is also recorded on plot No. 241/1/1 area 2 biswansis and plot No. 241/1/2 area 10 biswansis. This plot is not in dispute in the present litigation. Jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer to entertain and decide objection under S. 9A (2) of the Act was not challenged by the plaintiffs father Sardar Pooran Singh and the said objection was decided on the basis of aforesaid compromise which was scribed by plaintiff himself. The final records were prepared on the basis of said orders. It would be relevant to note that during consolidation operations, Gaon Sabha had not filed any objection claiming any right and title in respect of said plot in suit, which was recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 as aforesaid. In this view of the matter Gaon Sabha could not legitimately claim any title in the land in suit nor it could execute the alleged Izazatnama dated 17th May, 1971 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant vehemently pressed that if Gaon Sabha had no title and interest in the land in suit, it could not have passed resolutions regarding letting out of land in favour of plaintiff. I am unable to agree with this contention. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant vehemently pressed that if Gaon Sabha had no title and interest in the land in suit, it could not have passed resolutions regarding letting out of land in favour of plaintiff. I am unable to agree with this contention. The land virtually did not belong to the Gaon Sabha and the Gaon Sabha could not lay its claim to it in view of the fact that during consolidation operations no claim was put forward by Gaon Sabha. Passing of resolution by the Gaon Sabha concerned in respect of the land in suit would not vest title in Gaon Sabha. Various resolutions passed by Gaon Sabha, for letting out the land in suit and the Izazatnama executed by it in favour of the plaintiff are per se illegal and void and cannot confer any title on the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that since the land in suit was Abadi land and as such the entries made during consolidation operations in favour of defendant No. 1 would not estop the Gaon Sabha from claiming the land and the Gaon Sabha could, therefore, pass resolution for letting out the land to the plaintiff and the Izazatnama executed by it was a valid document. I am unable to agree with this contention as well. In the basic year Khatauni, name of plaintiffs father was recorded as tenure-holder on the land in suit. No objection was filed by Gaon Sabha claiming any title in the land in suit. Objection was filed by defendant No. 1 asserting that he is co-tenure-holder along with Sardar Pooran Singh, father of plaintiff. The said objection was decided on the basis of compromise and in those proceedings it was not asserted that the objection is not entertainable. Even if certain constructions were situate on the land in suit in the form Bhattis etc. concerning lime business, that would not make the land as Abadi land. Name of plaintiffs father was recorded as tenure-holder on the land in suit. Admittedly no declaration was made in respect of land in suit as is ehvisaged under S. 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. concerning lime business, that would not make the land as Abadi land. Name of plaintiffs father was recorded as tenure-holder on the land in suit. Admittedly no declaration was made in respect of land in suit as is ehvisaged under S. 143 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. The land in suit, therefore, did not cease to be land and the rights of tenure-holder could be determined by consolidation authorities in respect of land in dispute which was exclusively recorded in the name of plaintiffs father as tenure-holder thereof. If on certain plot, which forms part of holding certain constructions were made, such land would not cease to be part of the holding. It would continue to be recorded as such and the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act will govern such land in the absence of any declaration being granted under S. 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. If any plot of the holding has become Abadi or is used as such, it will continue to be recorded in the holding with a remark against it as 'Abadi Shamil Jot'. The Consolidation authorities, therefore, had jurisdiction to determine as to who is tenure-holder of the land in suit. 7. Defendant No.1 filed objection under S. 9A (2) of the Act claiming to be co-tenure-holder along with the plaintiffs father. The case was decided on the basis of compromise and the land in suit was ordered to be recorded exclusively in the name of defendant No. 1 on the basis of compromise by which the parties are bound. Plaintiff, being heir and successor of Sardar Pooran Singh is bound by the said compromise. He was also the scribe of said compromise. In this view of the matter I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that the consolidation Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain objection and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of said compromise is illegal and void. The plaintiff, being heir and successor of Sardar Pooran Singh is bound by the said compromise and in my opinion the Courts below have rightly recorded findings to that effect. Claim of plaintiff-appellant was merely based on the aforesaid Izazatnama dated 17th May, 1971 executed by the Gaon Sabha. The plaintiff, being heir and successor of Sardar Pooran Singh is bound by the said compromise and in my opinion the Courts below have rightly recorded findings to that effect. Claim of plaintiff-appellant was merely based on the aforesaid Izazatnama dated 17th May, 1971 executed by the Gaon Sabha. Both the Courts below have rejected the claim of the plaintiff-appellant and I do not find any infirmity in the findings in view of what has already been said above. The alleged lease and Izazatnama executed by the Gaon Sabha cannot confer any right or title upon the plaintiff as Gaon Sabha could not lay any claim to the land in suit for reasons mentioned above. 8. In the result, I do not find any substance in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. I, however, direct the parties to bear their own costs.