JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - In this second appeal the only question urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the claims of the parties, therefore, the impugned judgment should be set aside and the plaintiffs suit should be dismissed. 2. The dispute between the parties in the suit relates to the ownership.'of the trees standing on Banjar land. Both the courts below have given judgments for the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by their judgments the defendant has preferred the above noted second appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has invited my attention to the ruling reported in 1983 All WC 115 : (1983 UPLT NOC 25) Ram Lakhan v. Gaon Sabha Kusmahra. He has placed reliance upon the following observation made by Hon'ble Satish Chandra, J. - "In my opinion Usar and Banjar is also land within the meaning of consolidation of Holdings Act. It is normally connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry. The definition of land under Section 3(5) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act includes even the site of house or similar other structure which is part of the holding. Under the circumstances the consolidation courts had jurisdiction." 4. Relying upon the aforesaid observation the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the plaintiffs suit was barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Both the courts below have not accepted the plea raised on behalf of the defendant in this appeal. I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. In 1971 Rev Dec 520, Rama v. State of U.P. Hon'ble R. B. Misra, J. (as he then was) has held as below : - "There is an inherent lack of jurisdiction in the consolidation authorities for adjudication upon the rights of the parties in respect of property not situated on a holding obviously a Banjar land does not form part of the holding and, therefore, the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties in respect of the trees in question. It is open to the parties to get their rights adjudicated upon by a competent civil court." The impugned judgments in the second appeal are quite in consonance with the decision mentioned in 1971 Rev Dec 520. 5. It is open to the parties to get their rights adjudicated upon by a competent civil court." The impugned judgments in the second appeal are quite in consonance with the decision mentioned in 1971 Rev Dec 520. 5. I doubt the correctness of the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. Hon'ble the Chief Justice has failed to address himself to the term holding and he has also not examined what rights claimed by the parties could be determined by the consolidation authorities. A Division Bench of this court in 1967 All WR (HC) 337, Syed Ashfaq Hasan v. Waqf Nafs and Alalaulad and Alai Ayal through Mst. Zahida Khatoon vide para. 14 has held as below : - ".............We have fully analysed the provisions of the Act and have come to the conclusion that the functions of consolidation authorities are limited to deciding questions relating to tenure-holders right only, that is, rights of Bhumidhars, or Sirdars or Asamis in respect of agricultural holdings and beyond this consolidation authorities can decide nothing." 6. Since the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are against the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court think that the contentions have no force. No substantial question of law contemplated by the provisions of Section 100, C.P.C. is involved in this appeal. Rather, the impugned judgments are quite in consonance with the decision of this Court reported in 1971 Rev Dec 520 and also the observations made in the Division Bench case mentioned supra. 7. It is noteworthy that the appellant has not filed any decision of the consolidation courts in his favour regarding the subject matter of the suit. It has not been established that the trees standing on Banjar land constitute a grove or the subject matter of the suit has ever been treated as grove of the defendant. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case bar of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not arise, and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is not acceptable to me. Recently a Division Bench of this Court in 1986 All WC 919 : (1986 All LJ 1274) Baijnath Rai v. Deputy Director, Consolidation, Ghazipur has confirmed the ruling reported in 1971 Rev Dec 520 which completely answers the contention raised on behalf of the defendant appellant. 8. Recently a Division Bench of this Court in 1986 All WC 919 : (1986 All LJ 1274) Baijnath Rai v. Deputy Director, Consolidation, Ghazipur has confirmed the ruling reported in 1971 Rev Dec 520 which completely answers the contention raised on behalf of the defendant appellant. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.