JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - A suit was instituted by the respondent against the appellants for partition of a piece of land. It was contested by the appellants on the ground that there had already been a private partition about 40 years back and the land in suit had been allotted to their share in that partition so that the same belonged to them exclusively. They also asserted that since consolidation proceedings were going on in the village the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court. The Trial court recorded a finding against the appellants in regard to their plea of private partition and held that the land still Continued to be joint. It, however, agreed with the second plea raised on behalf of the appellants and dismissed the suit holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial court the respondent preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appellants, however, did not file any cross-objection against the finding recorded on the question of private partition, as contemplated by order 41, Rule 22 C.P.C. The lower appellate Court therefore rightly proceeded on the basis that the only question for determination before it was as to whether the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 3 and 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The lower appellate court held that the suit was not barred in so much as the consolidation authorities had already held on 13th November, 1981 that the land was abadi land. It consequently decreed the suit for partition as prayed. It is against the decree that the present second appeal has been preferred. 3. Having heard counsel for the appellants at some length I am of opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and as such there is no substance therein. Since the appellants had not filed any cross-objection against the finding which was given against them by the trial court as contemplated by Order 41. Rule 22 C.P.C., the lower appellate court was right in taking the view that the said finding was not under challenge in appeal. Since the appellants had not filed any cross-objection against the finding which was given against them by the trial court as contemplated by Order 41. Rule 22 C.P.C., the lower appellate court was right in taking the view that the said finding was not under challenge in appeal. As regards the bar of sections 3 and 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, on the finding of the consolidation authorities that the land was abadi land, the only court which could grant a decree about title of the said laud was the Civil Court. Neither the consolidation authorities nor even the revenue court could after that finding of the consolidation authorities grant any effective decree in regard to the abadi land. 4. In the result I find no merit in this second appeal. It is accordingly dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11, C.P.C.