JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This is defendants' appeal directed against judgment and decree of Sri R. D. Mathur, II Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh in Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1974 by which he allowed the appeal of plaintiffs-respondents and reversed the judgment and decree of learned Munsif in Suit No. 471 of 1968. The learned Munsif had dismissed the aforesaid suit with costs on 6-12-1973. 2. It appears that dispute relates to plot No. 174 measuring 4 Biswas situated in village Lutsan, Pargana Hathras, District Aligarh. 3. Relief sought by plaintiffs, who are own brothers, sons of Dev Karan Goswami was for perpetual injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' Samadhis in plot No. 173 by damaging or demolishing the same or by transferring its site and interfering in peaceful use and occupation of the plaintiffs on this land. 4. Plaintiffs filed this suit with the allegations that this plot was given a new No. 73 in Consolidation proceedings. The[e were graves of Dal Chand, grand father of plaintiffs, Dev Karan, father of plaintiffs and Shiv Shanker, brother of the plaintiffs on this land. This plot of land was used as burial ground for plaintiffs' family only and they were in possession of this land prior to the Abolition of Zamindari. 5. This area of 4 Biswas was earmarked for Samadhis in Consolidation proceedings and remaining area was left for cultivation and was allotted to plaintiffs. 6. It was further averred that Pradhan of the village in order to make illegal gains chalked out a plan and illegally got a Furzi resolution passed without informing the plaintiff by which this area of plot No. 173 was to be amalgamated with plot No. 187 which was a cremation ground. This 4 Biswas land of Samadhis could not be exchanged with plot No. 187. Now Pradhan wanted to transfer this land of 4 Biswas of plot No. 173 to third parties for residential purposes after getting the Samadhis demolished. If the defendants are not restrained they would dispossess the plaintiffs and would damage the Samadhis and the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss. As the defendants are not refraining from their illegal acts, hence this suit. 7. This suit was resisted by defendant No. 3 viz. Gram Samaj only. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 viz. U. P. Government and Land Management Committee did not contest the same. 8. As the defendants are not refraining from their illegal acts, hence this suit. 7. This suit was resisted by defendant No. 3 viz. Gram Samaj only. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 viz. U. P. Government and Land Management Committee did not contest the same. 8. It was pleaded by defendant No. 3 that plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession over the disputed land. During Consolidation proceedings disputed plot No. 173 was earmarked as cremation ground; it did not contain any Samadhis of Dal Chand, Sheo Shanker and Dev Karan. Disputed plot No. 173 adjoined Shiv temple and Abadi of plot No. 186 which was recorded as cremation ground. It also adjoined plot No. 187 which was recorded as Banjar. Gram Samaj exchanged plot No. 173 with the area of Banjar in plot No. 187 and amalgamated both the cremation grounds. The exchange was legal and plaintiffs had no reason to challenge it. 9. The suit was not maintainable. The suit was bad for want of notices under S. 106 of the Panchayat Raj Act and S. 80 of the Civil P. C. 10. After recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties learned Munsif came to the conclusion that cremation ground was owned and possessed by the Gaon Sabha and not by plaintiffs so he dismissed the suit. 11. Plaintiffs' appeal was allowed by impugned order giving rise to this appeal. 12. I have heard Sri. K. B. Garg, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 13. On behalf of the appellants it was pointed out that learned Civil Judge himself observed that plot No. 173 measuring four Biswas which was earlier recorded as Bhumidhari and Sirdari of plaintiffs predecessors vested in Gaon Sabha. 14. It was open to plaintiffs to prefer objections about this holding before Consolidation Authorities vide S. 9-A and S. 9-B of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954. They did not prefer any objection to the effect that the aforesaid holding was private burial-ground and so the decision of the Consolidation Authorities became final. This land vested in Gaon Sabha under S. 117 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951). They did not prefer any objection to the effect that the aforesaid holding was private burial-ground and so the decision of the Consolidation Authorities became final. This land vested in Gaon Sabha under S. 117 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951). It was not open to the plaintiffs to maintain any action about this plot which had been entered in the records as cremation-ground. 15. As regards the oral evidence plaintiffs examined Chandan Singh, P.W. 1, Gauri Shanker, P.W. 2 and Hari Giri, P.W. 3. Chandan Singh and Hari Giri testified that there were three graves in the disputed land. These graves belonged to Dal Chand, Deo Karan and Shiv Shanker. Gauri Shanker conceded that it was an agricultural plot which was being used for cultivation. Now this land has vested in Gram Samaj and has been allotted to Gram Samaj in Consolidation proceedings. This witnesses was declared hostile and cross-examined by the plaintiffs. 16. In defence there was statement of Pradhan D.W.l Newaram who denied the existence of any grave in the disputed land. He conceded * that this land was left in consolidation proceedings as cremation-ground. Its user has been changed now for residential purposes as it had joined the temple of Lord Shiva and Goddess. Some sub plots had been carved out for building purposes. It was not used as cremation-ground. Members of Giri community used to bury their dead bodies in plot No. 187 or in their own plots. 17. In cross-examination he stated that this land was recorded as cremation-ground; he could not tell the sites where Dal Chand, Deo Karan, Shiv Shankar etc. were buried. He further stated that earlier plot No. 173 was noted as agricultural holding of plaintiffs. He further stated that there was some heaps of earth on the disputed land. 18. A commission was issued to Amin in this case for demarcation of plot No. 173. He visited the spot on 18-7-1971 and submitted report paper No. 28-C and map paper No. 29-C. He observed that he could not successfully locate plot No. 173 but the alleged graves as pointed out by plaintiffs were shown by him in that map. Although the graves were not disinterred to show any bones, etc. 19. Learned counsel for appellants also referred to Exts. Although the graves were not disinterred to show any bones, etc. 19. Learned counsel for appellants also referred to Exts. A 1 to A 3 to show that such graves were not found in plot No. 173. It was wrongly recorded as cremation ground vide report of Supervisor Kanungo, Ext. A 2. The proposal of Pradhan about exchange of this plot was approved by S.D.O. vide Ext. A 1 dated 20-7-1964. In these circumstances plaintiffs had no locus standi to maintain an action for injunction when they were neither owners nor in possession of the disputed holding. They were entitled to compensation under S. 29-A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. A perusal of Section in Gaon Sabha and the provisions of S. 117 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 shall apply to such land also. 20. The suit was not filed by plaintiffs under O. 1 R. 8 of the C. P. C. They did not claim this land as a public graveyard and so such suit was not maintainable. 21. It was further pointed out that admittedly the land in dispute has now been reserved for extension of Abadi and the right, title and interest of the tenure-holders extinguished and vested in Gaon Sabha. In this connection reliance was placed upon an unpublished decision in Writ Petition No. 2162 of 1974, Vasu Dao Singh v. State of U.P. decided on 10-3-1980 : (reported in 1980 All WC 479) by Hon. R. M. Sahai, J. where it was held that a petition to challenge such order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was not maintainable. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants next relied upon Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in 1982 All L J 76 in support of his contention that plaintiffs could not initiate legal proceedings in this case as the holding had vested in Gaon Sabha who shall be deemed to have come in possession of this land as found consistently by both the Courts. 23. It appears that in that case petitioner who was in military service got a lease in respect of Gaon Sabha alleging that the lease granted by the Land Management Committee in favour of petitioner was invalid. 23. It appears that in that case petitioner who was in military service got a lease in respect of Gaon Sabha alleging that the lease granted by the Land Management Committee in favour of petitioner was invalid. That objection was repelled and it was held that it was open to the Land Management Committee to execute a lease about the plots situated in bed of tank and consolidation authorities could not adjudicate upon the validity of such lease. 24. None of these authorities laid down that a suit for injunction could not have lain to protect the interest of plaintiffs in the graves even if such suit was not maintainable about remaining area which was under cultivation earlier. However an action for injunction could not have lain about the area which vested in Gram Samaj which was not convered by graves of the family members of plaintiffs although such land might have vested in Gaon Sabha. In Mohd. Naqi Khan v. State of U.P. (1965 All L J 609) an injunction suit was brought by four plaintiffs about the plot which was dedicated property as the Muslims had a right to bury dead bodies but the Pradhan of the Gram Samaj interfered with their rights and had been disposing of the trees standing on that plot. It was found that by virtue of Sections 4, 6 and 117 of Z.A. & L.R. Act an area covered by trees vested in the Gaon Sabha who was competent to dispose of the trees and plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction with respect to the trees. In that case right of plaintiffs for burial was conceded by Gaon Saboa. It was further found that S. 4 of the aforesaid Act (U.P. Act No.l of 1951) operated on Waqf property also. So although the plot at one time vested in the almighty the plot vested in the State under S. 4 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. But such vesting did not come in the way of the burial of dead bodies in plot which was recognised as burial-ground by the defendants. 25. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Seth Loonkaran Sethiya v. Ivan E. John ( AIR 1975 All 113 ) where it was held that a person adversely affected by the order could prefer an appeal against that order. 25. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Seth Loonkaran Sethiya v. Ivan E. John ( AIR 1975 All 113 ) where it was held that a person adversely affected by the order could prefer an appeal against that order. This question about maintainability of action by a plaintiff about plot vesting in Gaon Sabha was not directly in issue in that case. 26. Learned counsel for respondents also relied upon Maulvi Muhammad Fahimat Haq v. Jagat Ballav Ghosh reported in AIR 1923 Pat 475 where it was posited : - "A beneficiary of a trust in respect of a Mohamedan Waqf interested in the maintenance of a mosque or other charitable institution may, without having recourse to the provisions of R. 8, O. 1, Civil P. C. and without suing in a representative capacity on behalf of the other beneficiaries, sue for recovery of possession of property wrongfully alienated by the trustee and for the incidental declaration that the properties are the subject of the trust and that they cannot be alienated." However, it was pointed out in that case that such suit for declaration by a beneficiary could not be filed without suing for consequential relief of possession also. There is cogent oral and documentary evidence on record to show that the disputed land was contributed for public purposes under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and it did vest in the Gaon Sabha and plaintiff rights therein except the graves have extinguished. 27. Learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to Lalji v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad reported in 1971 All LJ 1113 in support of his contention that Gaon Sabha had no authority in law to divert the use of land ear-marked for a public purpose. His contention was that the land was meant for cremation ground and so it could not be exchanged with other land nor it could be used for building purposes. 28. It appears that in that case petitioners made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for exchange of their land with land of Gaon Sabha. The Sub-Divisional Officer after making an enquiry and obtaining the report of Tahsildar allowed the exchange. The Gaon Sabha later on repudiated its consent for the exchange; it filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed and the order of exchange was set aside. The Sub-Divisional Officer after making an enquiry and obtaining the report of Tahsildar allowed the exchange. The Gaon Sabha later on repudiated its consent for the exchange; it filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed and the order of exchange was set aside. On an appeal by the petitioners the Board of Revenue upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the petitioner's application for the exchange of land. 29. However, it was pointed out in that case that a Goan Sabha was authorised to exchange its land with any Bhumidhar or Sirdar provided the permission for such exchange is granted by the Assistant Collector and there is no difference of rental value to the extent of more than ten per cent. 30. In the instant case respondents are not exchanges. No other flaw in Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 3 was shown. Under S. 198 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act any person aggrieved by the order of Pradhan could have approached the Collector and other higher authorities to seek redress. Thus from evidence on record 1 find that plaintiffs failed to prove their title or interest in disputed plot No. 173 except the three Samadhis of their family members. They are out of possession also from this portion of the land which vested in Gram Samaj. Plaintiffs have no locus standi to maintain an action for injunction about any portion of plot No. 173 except three graves, demolition of which may cause mental injury to them. The existence of such graves was admitted by D.W. 2, himself and had been shown by Commissioner in his map. In Jwala v. Ram Dutta reported in AIR 1964 All 437 it was held that in a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the land, as a cremation-ground, it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to ask for possession of the land. It appears that in that case the action was brought by plaintiffs and other members of village community about a cremation ground. In the instant case other co-villagers are not interested in these three graves of the family members of the plaintiffs. 31. No other point was agrued before me. 32. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. It appears that in that case the action was brought by plaintiffs and other members of village community about a cremation ground. In the instant case other co-villagers are not interested in these three graves of the family members of the plaintiffs. 31. No other point was agrued before me. 32. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The suit of plaintifffs is decreed to the extent that defendants are restrained from interfering in three Samadhis of disputed land shown in Amin's map paper No. 29-C which shall form part of decree. Rest of the claim fails. Costs of this Court shall be easy. The impugned judgment and decree are modified accordingly.