JUDGMENT K.P. SINGH, J. 1. AGGRIEVED by the judgments of the revenue courts the plaintiff petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. THE plaintiff petitioner filed suit under section 229-B/209 of the UP ZA and LR Act for declaration of her right in the disputed plots. Her case was that the disputed plots belonged to her father Bachchan alias Ram Bachchan. On the death of her father, her mother inherited the property in suit. On the death of her mother, she inherited the peoperty on 3-4-1953. According to her Ram Gati (maternal grand father) got a forged sale deed executed in his favour on 24-4-53 by some imposter representing that the transferor was the plaintiff's mother. THE aforesaid Ram Gati thereafter transferred the disputed land to Ram Chandra and others who are denying the title of the plaintiff petitioner. The claim of the plaintiff petitioner was contested by the contesting opposite parties 6 to 9 in the present writ petition and various pleas were taken to negative the claim of the plaintiff petitioner as is evident from the issues framed in the suit. One of the issues raised on behalf of the defendants opposite parties in the suit is that the plaintiff's suit is barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. ALL the revenue courts have given judgments against the plaintiff petitioner, therefore, the present writ petition. 4. THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the revenue courts have patently erred in applying the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. According to him the judgments of the revenue courts are patently erroneous and against the dictum of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgments. According to him the plaintiff petitioner had filed objection in the year 1964 claiming title to the property in dispute and her claim was not entertained by the consolidation courts on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner's claim was negatived during the consolidation operation and she cannot be permitted to reagitate the matter. 5. According to him the plaintiff petitioner had filed objection in the year 1964 claiming title to the property in dispute and her claim was not entertained by the consolidation courts on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner's claim was negatived during the consolidation operation and she cannot be permitted to reagitate the matter. 5. AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining various rulings cited at the bar I think that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner has force in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh, AIR 1974 SC 1657 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated in para 9 of their judgment as below:- "It was thus abundantly clear that an application for mutation on the basis of inheritence when the cause of action arose, after the finalisation and publication of the scheme under section 23, is not a matter in regard to which an application could be filed "under the provision of this Act" within the meaning of clause 2 of Section 49. Thus, the other limb of Section 49, also is not attracted." 6. THE aforesaid view has been reaffirmed in Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed, AIR 1981 SC 77 . In paragraph 12 of the judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated as below:- "It is well settled that unless there is an express provision barring a suit on the basis of title, the courts will not easily infer a bar of suit to establish the title of the parties. In Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh, AIR 1974 SC 1657 this Court made the following observations:- "It was thus abundantly clear that an application for mutation on the basis of inheritence when the cause of action arose, after the finalisation and publication of the scheme under section 23, is not a matter in regard to which an application could be filed "under the provisions of this Act" within the meaning of clause 2 of Section 49. Thus, the other limb of Section 49, also is not attracted. Thus, the other limb of Section 49, also is not attracted. THE result is, that the plea of the bar of the civil courts jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate upon the title to the land of the sonship of the plaintiff has no substance." In Malkhan Singh v. Sohan Singh, AIR 1986 SC 500 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in paragraph 10 as below:- "If once it is accepted that the decision of the consolidation authorities after the final allotment of chak to Kishan Singh that the appellant was not the adopted son of Kishan Singh amounts to an order under mutation proceedings and there was no adjudication of rights and title of the appellant in the earlier proceedings, there is no question of the suit being barred by res-judicata or by the principles of res-judicata. The High Court in our opinion had committed a manifest error in holding that the suit giving rise to the present appeal was barred by the principles of res-judicata or by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. " 7. SECTION 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act after amendment of the year 1963 reads as below:- "12 (1) All matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights or interests recorded in the revised records published under sub-section (1) of SECTION 10 for which a cause of action had not arisen when proceedings under sections 7 to 9 were started or were in progress, may be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as and when they arise, but not latter than the date of notification under section 52, or under sub-section (1) of Section 6. (2) The provisions of Sections 7 to 11 shall mutatis mutandis, apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid sections. "Sections 7 to 11 of the Act deal with the rights and title of the tenure holder and by the application of those provisions to the proceedings under section 12 in matters for which cause of action had arisen subsequently will make the decision a decision of title. "Sections 7 to 11 of the Act deal with the rights and title of the tenure holder and by the application of those provisions to the proceedings under section 12 in matters for which cause of action had arisen subsequently will make the decision a decision of title. But the position prior to the amendment of 1963 was different and there was no provision for the adjudication of the rights and title of a tenure holder once the title and interest of the original tenure holder had been finally determined and chak had been allotted." 8. IN the present case in paragraph 16 of the writ petition the plaintiff petitioner has alleged that the proceedings before the consolidation authorities up to the stage of sections 9 and 23 of the Act having been over in 1962 long before the cessation of the plaintiff's minority in the year 1964, therefore, the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would not be attracted. IN paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit the aforesaid paragraph 16 of the writ petition has been denied but the deponent has not controverted the allegations made by the petitioner that the proceedings before the consolidation authorities upto the stage of sections 9 and 23 of the Act had been over in the year 1962. Since the plaintiff petitioner became major in the year 1964, therefore, she could not press her claim when the proceedings under sections 9 and 23 were in progress regarding the disputed land. Though the plaintiff petitioner could not succeed before the consolidation authorities but her failure would be treated as failure in mutation cases only. Despite the fact that the plaintiff petitioner could not succeed before the consolidation authorities as she put forward her claim after the period of limitation, therefore, the nature of proceedings started at the instance of the plaintiff petitioner was only in the nature of mutation proceedings in the facts and circumstances of this case and any decision adverse to her would not operate as a decision on question of title. Viewing from this angle, I find that the revenue courts have patently erred in dismissing the plaintiff petitioner's suit due to bar of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Viewing from this angle, I find that the revenue courts have patently erred in dismissing the plaintiff petitioner's suit due to bar of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In view of the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court I think that the plaintiff petitioner's counsel rightly contends that the judgments of the revenue courts suffer from patent errors of law and are not in accordance with the dictum of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. 9. ACCORDING to the provisions of Section 12 of the amended U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the year 1963 matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights or interest recorded in the revised records published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 for which a cause of action had not arisen when proceedings under sections 7 to 9 were started or were in progress, may be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the provisions of Sections 7 to 11 would be attracted. In the present case the entry in revised record published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 is being challenged and the cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff petitioner when the proceedings under sections 7 to 9 were in progress but the plaintiff petitioner was handicapped due to her minority to press her claim. Therefore, any decision against the plaintiff petitioner in the year 1964 would not be covered by the provisions of Section 12 of the Act nor any decision against her would be covered by the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. FOR the foregoing discussions the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgments of the revenue courts are quashed and the case is sent back to the trial court for deciding the plaintiff's suit on merits strictly in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.