JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - These are four connected defendant's second appeals against judgment and decree dated December 5, 1977 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, allowing first appeal Nos. 279 and 280 decreeing plaintiff's suits, the two first appeal Nos. 246 and 247 filed by defendant Mewa Ram were dismissed, thereby decreeing two suits of the plaintiff against Mewa Ram ordering his ejectment, by setting aside judgment and decree dated March 10, 1976 passed by S.D.O. Mah, district Agra, dismissing plaintiff's two suits declaring the disputed land to be Gaon Sabha property. 2. The plaintiffs had filed two suits that the disputed land were gifted to Gopalji and Hanumanji Maharaj Mandir on September 19, 1968 by Smt. Ram Pyari widow of Har Bilas, that their mutation application was dismissed; that defendant Mewa Ram wrongly got his name mutated and the plaintiff's application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was rejected and direction was given to file regular suit hence the suits for declaration that the disputed land be declared to be Bhumidhari of the deity and Mewa Ram who is not heir of Harbilas or of Ram Pyari, if found in possession be ejected and damages be awarded. 3. The suits were contested by Mewa Ram alleging to the Bhumidhar in possession as heir of Ram Pyari and her husband Harbilas; that his name was mutated during consolidation proceedings and plaintiff's application for mutation was rejected after amendment of 1963, therefore, the plaintiff's suits were barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties regarding four second appeals together and have perused the record. This judgment shall cover all the four second appeals. Its copies shall be placed on connected appeals files. 5. It has been argued that the plaintiff's suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act as after amendment of 1963 proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act and is not only mutation proceeding but is adjudication of rights and operates as bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Reliance has been placed on 1974 R.D. 331 and 340 and 1976 R.D. 296. 6. Reliance has been placed on 1974 R.D. 331 and 340 and 1976 R.D. 296. 6. It has been argued in reply that both the courts below held that defendant Mewa Ram was not heir of Smt. Ram Pyari; that the gift deed was executed in favour of temple after Chaks were allotted and proceeding under Sections 9 to 12 had ended, therefore, the suits were not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act; that dismissal of application of the plaintiff in default is not adjudication of rights; that the plaintiff had no knowledge about the mutation proceedings in favour of the defendant. Therefore, it is not binding that copy of the said mutation order in favour of the defendant has not been filed. Reliance has been placed on 1980 R.D. 61 and 81 and 1979 R.D. 78. 7. It was argued in reply as rejoinder that order of dismissal of application of plaintiff for mutation during consolidation proceeding is admitted and mutation in favour of the defendant dated October 9, 1971 is also admitted in the plaint and plaintiff had knowledge on April 16, 1974. Therefore, non-filing of the copy of the mutation order in favour of the defendant-appellant is not fatal, it is also corroborated by order dated August 27, 1974 dismissing the application of plaintiff for mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 8. The wordings of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act clearly lay down that for declaration of one's right during consolidation proceeding if a dispute had been raised by the tenant or ought to have been raised such dispute shall be decided by the consolidation authorities and by other court. Only then by application of principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata a subsequent suit for declaration of such right shall be barred otherwise not. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed and another 1980 A.L.J. 902 is that if name of a co-tenant is got dropped dishonestly by a co-tenant the suit challenging it on that basis will not be barre by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed and another 1980 A.L.J. 902 is that if name of a co-tenant is got dropped dishonestly by a co-tenant the suit challenging it on that basis will not be barre by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Its corollary is that if a person gets his name recorded as an heir dishonestly and by playing fraud who is not found to be heir the subsequent suit challenging such recording of name will not be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and it has been also laid down in Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh and others A.I.R. 1974 (S.C.) 1657 that the question which could not have been raised during consolidation proceedings and is raised afterwards such suit is not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 9. In the present case the argument on behalf of the appellant that after the amendment of 1963 the proceeding under Sections 9 to 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act is for adjudication of rights and decision therein operates as a bar under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act in subsequent suit is not challenge-able as far as the principle goes but if mutation is got in one's favour as an heir by a person who is not an heir after chaks are carved, the proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act remains only a mutation proceeding even after the amendment of 1963 and order for mutation in such cases does not bar a subsequent suit under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. On the principle that no chance was left for getting adjudication of rights by the parties after the chaks were carved out. In the present case it is clear from the perusal of the gift deeds that gifts were made by Smt. Ram Pyari the recorded Bhumidhar of the disputed plots in favour of the temples after the chaks were carved out after the proceeding under Section 9 to 12 were over, therefore, the plaintiffs had no chance to agitate for their rights in the consolidation proceedings under Section 9 to 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, therefore, their subsequent suit is not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Their application for mutation was dismissed and another application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was dismissed with the direction for filling the regular suit. The application of mutation of the plaintiffs was dismissed by Assistant Consolidation Officer after the chaks were carved out and as a matter of fact the gifts were executed after the Chaks were carved out, therefore, the dismissal of application for mutation of the chak having been carved out does not amount to adjudication of rights and the subsequent suits are not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 10. The defendant-appellant had not filed the copy of the actual order of mutation in his favour. The mentioning of mutation in his favour in other orders does not suffice because the judgments are admissible for the purpose of points determined therein and not for the purpose of facts mentioned therein. In any case even if such mutation order in favour of the defendant-appellant is considered to have been passed as it was passed even after the gift deeds after carving the chaks, therefore, it remained only a mutation order and not adjudication of right by consolidation authority under Sections 9 to 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. No notice of that mutation proceeding was issued to the plaintiff who had applied for mutation in their favour earlier to the proceeding in favour of the defendant. Therefore, they had no opportunity to agitate for their rights against the right claimed by the defendant but the defendant had been found to be not heir of either Smt. Ram Pyari or her deceased husband Harbilas under Section 171 of Act of 1951. Therefore, the mutation order in favour of the defendant so obtained will be certainly considered to have been obtained by practicing fraud and concealment on Assistant Consolidation Officer and is liable to be challenged in the subsequent suit on that ground and such suit will not be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act as has been held in Karhalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed and another 1980 A.L.J. 902, Therefore, the lower appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that the suits were not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 11. Sayeed and another 1980 A.L.J. 902, Therefore, the lower appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that the suits were not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 11. Both the suits were filed within time as they were filed on July 7, 1975 and the 12 years limitation was applicable since October 14, 1971 and the gift deeds are dated August 19, 1967 and the mutation in favour of the defendant is of 1971, therefore, the suits were within time being within 12 years from the date of the mutation in favour of the defendant and gift deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus these appeals have got no force. They are liable to be dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is liable to be confirmed. 12. In view of the above these 4 second appeals are hereby dismissed with costs although and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are hereby confirmed. The disputed land shall be recorded in the name of the plaintiffs by expunging the name of the defendant and the name of the Gaon Sabha if it has been recorded by the order of the trial court. the paper shall be correctly accordingly.