JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - This is an application on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the appeal stands abated in view of Section 5 (2) (a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (for short 'the Act, 1953'). 2. Sri Faujdar Rai, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, has opposed the application. His submission is that since the suit relates to abadi land, the provisions of the Act, J 953, are not at all applicable to the suit land and, therefore, the question of the appeal being abated does not arise. He relying on Abdullah Bin Ali and others v. Galappa and others ( AIR 1985 SC 567 ) submitted that jurisdiction to try the suit would be determined on the allegations made in the plaint and not on the defence pleas raised in the written statement. The argument is that since the plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the suit land is Abadi land, the jurisdiction is vested only in the civil court. Whereas, the plaintiff-respondent averred in the plaint that the land in suit is Abadi Land, the defendant-appellant claimed that the suit land was part of his agricultural plot and that was subsequently allotted in his chak No. 9. The question, therefore, before the court below was whether the suit land formed part of the Abadi land or of agricultural land. 3. From the impugned judgment dated December 17, 1975, of the appellate court, it appears that the appellant has filed copies of the judgments of the Consolidation officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (being Exts A/2 and A/3), which go to show that the dispute arose between the parties in respect of plot No. 24. The appellant submitted before the appellate court that the plaintiff-respondent had claimed sirdari rights over the land in suit before the consolidation authorities, The appellate court was of the view that the plaintiff-respondent might have claimed sirdari rights "Under wrong notions". The defendant-appellant also relied on a consolidation map (Ext. A/1), which included the plot in which suit land is situated. The appellant court observed that the said consolidation map" was wrongly prepared and wrongly included the Abadi land". On these facts, the submission of Sri Faujdar Rai that Section 5 of the Act, 1953, cannot be invoked, cannot be accepted. 4. A/1), which included the plot in which suit land is situated. The appellant court observed that the said consolidation map" was wrongly prepared and wrongly included the Abadi land". On these facts, the submission of Sri Faujdar Rai that Section 5 of the Act, 1953, cannot be invoked, cannot be accepted. 4. No doubt, the jurisdiction of a court is ordinarily decided on the basis of the averments, made in the plaint, but the averments made in the plaint of plaintiff-respondent cannot be accepted on the face value and they have to be seen in the light of the. preceding facts that a dispute arose earlier between the parties, when the plaintiff-respondent himself claimed sirdari rights over the suit land before the consolidation authorities and that the plots in which the suit land is situated, were included in the consolidation map (Ext. A/1). In this back-ground, the rights of the parties over the suit land will be adjudicated upon only by the consolidation authorities. Therefore the decision in the case of Abdullah Bin Ali (supra), which is based on entirely different facts, is clearly distinguishable and that cannot be taken into the aid by Sri Faujdar Rai. 5. Section 5 (2) (a) of the Act, 1953, clearly says upon the publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of section 4, which has admittedly been published in this case, the proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any court, whether of the first instance or of appeal, such proceedings will stand abated. Looking to the facts of the case, it is manifest that the proceedings in regard to the suit land ought to have been taken under the Act, 1953, and, therefore, the instant appeal stands abated in view of Section 5 (2) (a) of the Act, 1953. 6 The application is, therefore, allowed. The appeal stands abated.