JUDGMENT : Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J. Plaintiff-respondent first party is the petitioner in the instant case. This application is directed against ORDER :dated 22.6.1979 passed by the District Judge, Sitamarhi, in Title Appeal No. 81 of 1977 holding that the appeal as well as the suit (which was decreed by the trial court after the notification in question) stand abated. The Court of appeal below held that the dispute related to a portion of the homestead land on which no house stood and that it was also the plaintiff's case. The other finding given by the court of appeal below, on which the impugned ORDER :is based, is that the disputed plot came under the operation of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as the definition of the word' 'land" includes homestead land also. The third finding given by the court of appeal below is that though it was true that the plaintiff's relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession was to be made after• adjudication that he was the adopted son but the plaintiff had not claimed that adjudication specifically in his plaint and, as such, such a declaration could not be made. 2. Upon the aforesaid findings the court of appeal below held that the appeal as well as the suit (already decreed by the trial court) stood abated. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the disputed land includes a building structure existing thereto and, has contained that such a fact having been pleaded in the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the court of appeal below, the court of appeal below should have held that the suit and the appeal were not hit by the provisions of section 4(c) of the Act, as contended by the defendant first party. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, has placed' before me' his rejoinder filed in the court of appeal below and on the basis of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the same contended that if these' facts were there, the suit and the appeal were beyond the jurisdiction of the Consolidation authorities. It is desirable to quote paragraphs 5 and 6 of the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the court of appeal below :- "5. It is desirable to quote paragraphs 5 and 6 of the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the court of appeal below :- "5. That the suit land is not a culturable or only a house-hold land rather it includes a building structure existing thereon. 6. That the Village Advisory Committee formed under the rule has not included the suit land in the list of lands to be brought under the consolidation and this is why there is no such notice of valuation of thy suit land U/s 10 (1) of the Consolidation Act and has not been brought on the record to the effect that the - suit land is under Consolidation operation." On a perusal of the averments of facts in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff - petitioner, which is quoted above, it is abundantly clear that it is not the plaintiff-petitioner's case that there is a house On the disputed plot. What is stated is that the disputed portion of the plot includes a building structure. Even if it is meant, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is a building on the portion of the plot in dispute, the plaintiff-petitioner has not whispered that this building is unconnected with the agricultural operations. 4. It is well settled by now that an agriculturist may have more than one houses and it ham been held in the case of Ram Pratap Mahto & Ors. V. Diplal Mahto & Ors. (1979 Bihar Bar Council Journal 738) that only such a house which is unconnected with agricultural operation is saved under the Act and the provisions of Section 4(c) will not be applicable. But Such a house of an agriculture though it is a house, which is connected with the agricultural operation, is hit by the provisions of Section 4(c) of the Act. It is true, if there is any controversy with regard to the fact whether the house is connected with agricultural operation or not; in that case, it is incumbent upon the Court to first resolve the controversy and then decide the applicability of Section 4(c) of the Act, as already held in the Case of Ram Pratap Mahto (Supra). In the instant case the plaintiff-petitioner himself does not aver either that he is living in the house or that it is not connected with the agricultural operations. In the instant case the plaintiff-petitioner himself does not aver either that he is living in the house or that it is not connected with the agricultural operations. By now the law is well settled and hence in the absence of such in plea on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner, in his rejoinder, itte1f, it is not open to the plaintiff-petitioner to contend that as the land is a homestead land it is not hit by the provisions of Section 4(c) of the Act. The court below has very correctly held that the portion in dispute of plot in question, even though it is a homestead land, falls within the provision, of Section 4(c) of the Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has faintly contended, on the basis of the averments made in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder that as the village Advisory Commit tee did not include the suit land in the list of land to be brought under the Consolidation and as there was no notice of the valuation of the suit land under Section 10(1) of the Act; the provisions of Section 4(c) were not applicable either in the suit or in the appeal. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner very fairly conceded that true it is that the Village Advisory Committee did not include the suit land in the list of lands to be brought Under the Consolidation but the Village Advisory Committee never forwarded its advice before the Consolidation authority. 6. Thus, in view of the well established principles of law, as already laid down in several cases including the case of Ram Pratap Mahto (Supra), the court below, in my opinion, has taken a very correct view of law and the ORDER :under revision does not need to be interfered with. I hold that on the facts of the case the court below has correctly held that the suit and the appeal had abated under the provisions of Section 4(c) of the Act. I further hold that the court below has neither acted illegally in exercise of it jurisdiction nor has acted with material irregularity. 7. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case there will be no ORDER :as to costs. Application dismissed.