JUDGMENT S.K. Sahgal, Chairman. - This is a reference under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act made by the Additional Collector, Rae Bareli, in a mutation case, recommending that the order of the Naib Tahsildar dated 31-12-73 be set aside. An objection has been filed against the recommendation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Ganga Din, the recorded tenure-holder died. Smt. Jasoda applied for mutation of her name in place of Ganga Din as being sister of the deceased. Ram Bali, Gokul and Smt Sukhdei entered contest and filed objection stating that under the orders of S. K. the name of Smt. Sukhdei was entered in place of Ganga Din, and that Ram Bali and Gokul had purchased the land in dispute through a registered sale-deed executed by Smt. Sukhdei. The Naib Tahsildar vide his order dated 31-12-73 allowed mutation in favour of Smt, Jasoda. Being aggrieved by this order of the Naib Tahsildar Smt. Sukhdei went up in revision to the Additional Collector who has made the present reference. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. Learned counsel for revisionist has argued that the Tahsildar has exceeded his jurisdiction in refusing to consolidate the cases Nos. 184 and 206 based on transfer and succession respectively and that the mutation Court is bound by the decision of the Civil Court in favour of Sukhdei and Ram Bali, despite the fact that High Court has allowed second appeal, set aside the District Judge's decision and remanded the case to the District Judge for fresh decision. 4. The learned counsel for opposite party argued that no sub-judice judgment can be binding, that the lower Court orders merge in the Appellate Court order which in turn has been upset by the High Court and thus is no longer binding. He has further argued that while in 1974 it was good law that a case should be transferred to the S. D. O. when both transfer and succession were at issue, this is no longer true today as jurisdiction now lies with the Tahsildar in cases of both transfer and succession. As such a remand in favour of the S. D. O. at this stage would be legally wrong and take away one appellate right of the litigant. As such a remand in favour of the S. D. O. at this stage would be legally wrong and take away one appellate right of the litigant. He has forcefully argued that the dispute is primarily one of succession between Sukhdei and Jasoda and the Tahsildar was right in deciding the succession case first. 5. From the facts as these have emerged, it is clear that the dispute is essentially one of succession to Gangadin. The Supervisor Kanungo entered the name of Sukhdei who claimed to be the mother of the deceased and she in turn decided to effect the sale of the property to Rambali, etc., Meanwhile, Smt. Jasoda set her claim as successor to the deceased Ganga Din being his sister through a mutation application. Proclamation was issued and objections were filed by Sukhdei and Rambali, etc. A request was made to consolidate both the pending cases but the Naib Tahsildar rejected the same, and insisted on determining the right of succession between the two contesting cases first. I have perused the judgment order of the Naib Tahsildar and find that he has arrived at a decision of fact after weighing the evidence produced by both the sides. 6. I am afraid I am unable to support the view taken by the learned Additional Collector that the Naib Tahsildar was bound to consolidate the two cases, including the mutation case based on succession pending with him and send them to the S. D. O. for decision. The question of validity or otherwise of the rights of the transferee from Smt. Sukhdei can actually arise only after the right of Smt. Sukhdei to succeed the deceased was decided upon. It is this right which had been questioned in the mutation application of Smt. Jasoda, claiming as the sister of the deceased and alleging inter-alia that Smt. Sukhdei was not the mother of the deceased, but a subsequent wife of deceased Ganga Din's father, the validity of whose marriage was also doubted. In this view of the matter, the learned Naib Tahsildar was justified in insisting on deciding the question of succession as between the two women first, on which would depend the validity or otherwise of the transfer effected by Smt. Sukhdei. In this view of the matter, the learned Naib Tahsildar was justified in insisting on deciding the question of succession as between the two women first, on which would depend the validity or otherwise of the transfer effected by Smt. Sukhdei. It is perfectly conceivable that the learned Naib Tahsildar decides the case pending before him and the S. D. O., before whom the application for mutation by transferee was presumably pending would decide the case on the basis of the conclusion arrived at on the question of succession by the Naib Tahsildar. Of course the S. D. O. always has the right to stay proceedings in the Court of the Naib Tahsildar and or to transfer the proceedings sending in that Court to himself for decision. The record, however, does not show that this was done or attempted to be done in the present case. 7. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Courts on the civil side on the issues arising in the mutation proceedings. It would appear that Smt. Jasoda had moved the Civil Court against transfer of the land in dispute by Smt. Sukhdei and the case was decided in favour of Smt. Sukhdei and Rambali, etc., at the level of the Civil Judge. An appeal filed to the District Judge was also dismissed. However, a second appeal filed before the High Court was allowed on 15-7-81, the District Judges decision was set aside and the case remanded to the District Judge for fresh decision. A copy of the High Court's judgment has been brought on the file and shows that High Court has remanded the case for decision precisely on the point as to whether Smt. Jasoda is the heir of Ganga Din deceased. It is clear from the High Court's judgment that the very issue of succession as heir to Ganga Din deceased has to be decided afresh by the Civil Court. In view of this, there can be no question of any decision of the Civil Court being available and binding on the mutation Court. As such we have to fall back on the finding of fact arrived at by the Trial Court after balancing the evidence produced before it on both sides. In view of this, there can be no question of any decision of the Civil Court being available and binding on the mutation Court. As such we have to fall back on the finding of fact arrived at by the Trial Court after balancing the evidence produced before it on both sides. We have to remember that the mutation Court is a summary Court and its main purpose is not to leave any plot of agricultural land without an entry in the annual records. If and when the Civil Court comes to a definite judgment which is contrary to the conclusion arrived at by the mutation Court in summary proceedings, the Civil Court finding will definitely prevail over the mutation Court's finding. Until then the mutation Court's finding must stand. 8. In view of the foregoing, I am inclined to support the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Naib Tahsildar in the matter of succession to deceased Ganga Din. The point raised in the reference regarding certificate to be appended on the statement of the witness before the Trial Court has been disposed of in R.D. 1974 P. 339. Regarding inadequacy of notice to the pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, the Gaon Sabha is not really involved in the dispute since the real disputants are Smt. Jasoda and Sukhdei who have been parties to the proceedings from the very beginning. Even if it is conceded that Gaon Sabha has not been properly served no advantage can in any case accrue to any of the parties on this account. I accordingly find that the reference made by the learned Additional Collector is mis-conceived. It is accordingly hereby discharged and the revision thereunder stands dismissed.