JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - Four points have been urged by counsel for the appellants. Firstly, it has been argued that the sale deed executed by his father on the basis of which the plaintiff-respondents were claiming title over the land in dispute was invalid in as much as his father was only a non-occupancy tenant of the land it dispute and could not validly sell it. Suffice it to say so far as this submission is concerned that the courts below have held that the father of the appellant obtained bhumidhari sanad after depositing ten times rent and being a bhumidhar was entitled to execute the sale deed. 2. The second point urged by counsel for the appellant is that a suit had been instituted earlier by the plaintiffs-respondent which was got abated under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. According to him it was established in the present suit that indeed, the land in dispute had ever been brought under the consolidation operations and consequently even though the suit was actually abated under Section 5 as aforesaid, it amounted to the dismissal of the suit on merits and consequently the present suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. I find it difficult to agree with this submission earlier. Neither any authority nor any principle has been brought to my notice on the basis of which it could be said that even though no adjudication on merits was made in the earlier suit and it was simply abated under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act it should still be deemed to have been dismissed on merits. 3. Thirdly, it was urged that the suit was barred by time. Once the sale deed executed by the father of the appellant has been found to be valid the title of the plaintiff-respondent was established. It could extinguish only if the appellants succeed establishing acquisition of rights by adverse possession which they failed to do. 4. Lastly, it was urged that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit the same being in regard to agricultural land. Suffice it to say so far as this submission is concerned that the trial court while considering issue no. 4. Lastly, it was urged that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit the same being in regard to agricultural land. Suffice it to say so far as this submission is concerned that the trial court while considering issue no. 15 has recorded a finding that it was admitted to both the parties that the land in dispute at present constituted abadi. A suit in regard to abadi land could be filed in the Civil Court alone. 5. In the result I find no merit in this second appeal. It is accordingly dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C. and the interim order of stay dated 1st of May 1984 is vacated.