JUDGMENT Ram Lal, Member - Additional Commissioner, Agra has made against the order dated 23-9-82 of the S.D.O. Kasganj, District Etah passed in a mutation case rejecting the appeal of Abdul Rahman Khan and others it has been recommended that the orders of the two courts below be set aside on the ground that the second mutation application was not maintainable on the same cause of action. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the O. P Rao Mohd, Khan sought mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 17-10-64 in respect of the plot in dispute. An objection was filed by the revisionist Abdul Rahman Khan, that an order was passed in his favour in suit no. 20 of 1950 by the Judicial Officer in the year 1950 in a declaratory suit under Section 59 of U.P. Tenancy Act and he was still in possession over the land to dispute The name of Gulam Subten Khan had been wrongly continuing in revenue papers After considering the evidence of the parties the trial court allowed mutation in favour of Rao Mohd. Khan on the basis of the registered sale deed. Aggrieved with this order an appeal was filed before the S.D.O which was dismissed on 23-9-82. Thereafter a revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner giving rise to the present before the giving rise to the present reference. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has supported the reference while the learned counsel for the O. P. has opposed it. 5. The sale deed was executed by Gulam Subten Khan whose name was recorded in the revenue papers. The sale deed is dated 17-10-64 in favour of the O Ps./vendees. A perusal of the record shows that the O. Ps had earlier sought mutation on the basis of the said sale deed which was rejected by the S.D.O. on 22-12-73 in case no. 431 on the ground that the land involved was sirdari. According to the revisionist they had filed a declaratory suit under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act against Chedani Begum and others which was decreed on 20-12-54 by the Judicial Officer - In this suit, the plaintiff Habibullah and others were declared as grove - holders. 431 on the ground that the land involved was sirdari. According to the revisionist they had filed a declaratory suit under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act against Chedani Begum and others which was decreed on 20-12-54 by the Judicial Officer - In this suit, the plaintiff Habibullah and others were declared as grove - holders. According to the revisionist their names could not be given effect to in revenue records and the name of Gulam Subten Khan continued who executed the sale deed in favour of the O. Ps. It has been stated that the ancestors of the O. Ps were defendants in the above declaratory suit. 6. The main crux in the present case is if the second mutation application moved on 13-3-79 was maintainable in view of the order dated 22-12-73 of the A.S.D.O. passed in the first mutation report filed by the O.P.A certified copy of which is on record (paper No. 39-A). The second question involved in the present case is if the O. Ps shall get advantage of the Amending Act VIII of 1977 which became operative with effect from 28-1-77 according to which all the sirdars became bhumidhars. 7. The land in question is undisputedly grove. Gulam Subten the recorded tenure - holder who executed the sale deed has not challenged the sale deed. The revisionist claims title and possession over the land in dispute on the basis of the Judgement and orders passed in suit no. 20 of 1950 under Section 59 U.P. Tenancy Act. The first mutation application was moved by the O. P. on the basis of the sale deed dated 17-10-64 and the second mutation application was also moved by them on the basis of the same sale deed in the year 1979. A certified copy of the first mutation report and the order of the A.S.D.O. dated 22-12-73 passed in that mutation application are on record (paper Nos. 39-N and 15-2-A). A persual of the order of the A. S.D.O. shows that the mutation application was rejected on the ground that it was sirdari holdings. Thus mutation order has become final as it is an order of merit. There is nothing on the record that the O. P. had preferred an appeal or a revision against that order. 39-N and 15-2-A). A persual of the order of the A. S.D.O. shows that the mutation application was rejected on the ground that it was sirdari holdings. Thus mutation order has become final as it is an order of merit. There is nothing on the record that the O. P. had preferred an appeal or a revision against that order. For arguments sake, if it is also assumed that the order of the A.S.D.O. was wrong even then it has become final and no second mutation application was maintainable on the basis of the same cause of action i.e. sale deed dated 17-10-64. 8. Further the Amending Act VIII of 1977 which became operative with effect from 28-1-77 according to which all sirdars became bhumidhars legal position of law has changed undoubtedly but in view of the Ruling reported in 1977 RD 149-150 and 1983 A.V.N. 172 the second mutation application was not maintainable on the same cause of action. Moreover, in the present case the complicated question of title between the parties is also involved. It cannot be decided in a mutation proceedings which are of summary nature. The remedy is available by way of filing of a regular suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The order dated 22-12-73 of the A.S.D.O. in mutation case no. 431 having become final between the parties the second mutation application was not maintainable. The orders of both the courts below mutating the name of the vendees/O. Ps on the basis of the same sale deed was legally unsustainable. 9. In view of the above discussion, the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner is liable to be accepted and revision allowed. The orders of the two courts below are set aside and the mutation application rejected. 10. In the result, the reference is accepted and revision allowed. The orders of the two courts below are set aside and the second mutation application of O. Ps. is rejected.