JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, I.A.S., Member. - This is a defendants second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12-2-1988 passed by Sri O.S. Deswal, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal no. 28 of 1985-86 in respect of the land situate in Mauza Sikandara, pergana Moth, district Jhansi. 2. This case has a chequered history. The lekhpal Sia Ram, after having obtained due permission from the collector filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Parasu Ram in respect of plot no. 97/3.76 with the allegation that the suit plot was a tank and the property of the Gaon Sabha on which the defendant. Parasu Ram came in illegal possession and became its sirdar against law. The pradhan of the Gaon Sabha did not take any action against the defendant despite repeated requests and directions. Hence, permission for filing a suit against him was obtained on 20-4-1978 from the Collector. The disputed plot being tank was put to auction annually. But the cause of action arose when the defendant was found recorded as sirdar. 3. The defendant Parasuram contested the suit and denied the allegation that the plot in dispute is tank. His contention is that the plot has always been under cultivation and that he being in possession since before the abolition of zamindari, has perfected his sirdari rights. In order to seek declaration of his rights he had filed a suit no. 24 of 1969-70 in the court of the SDO Moth. This suit was decreed and he was declared sirdar. Since the State and the Gaon Sabha were parties to the suit under reference, this suit operates as res-judicata. The suit is also barred by the principle of estoppel because the Gaon Sabha had also admitted his possession. The suit is also barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act because the Gaon Sabha had never been in possession before the abolition of zamindari. The village was also under consolidation operations and was denotified under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The suit is also barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, Sri V.P. Tripathi, SDO Moth framed the following issues : 1. Is the suit barred by the principle of res-judicata? 2. Is the suit barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act? 3. Is the suit not maintainable? The suit is also barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, Sri V.P. Tripathi, SDO Moth framed the following issues : 1. Is the suit barred by the principle of res-judicata? 2. Is the suit barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act? 3. Is the suit not maintainable? 4. Was the defendant wrongly declared sirdar? 5. Is the defendant bhumidhar of the plot in dispute with transferable rights? The defendant has claimed that he was declared sirdar in a suit no. 24 of 1969-70. The learned trial court has found that this file was not traceable in the record-room. It, however, examined the record-keeper, Satish Chandra who deposed that the reference of this case is found in the Misilband Register in which a remark has been made that the suit was dismissed. A photostat copy of the judgment and decree was also seen by the learned trial court but no certified copy of the judgment was produced. The plot in dispute is recorded as tank in CH-11. On the basis of the decree purported to be passed in case no. 24/216 of 1969-70, the consolidation authorities had ordered to record the defendant as sirdar against the plot in dispute. But the learned trial court found that this decree was not in consonance with the judgment given in the suit which was dismissed and when the suit was dismissed how a favourable decree could be issued by the same court which had pronounced the judgment. The learned trial court has observed that before passing the mutation order, no notice was given to the Gaon Sabha by the ACO and since the matter was not adjudicated upon by the consolidation court and the decree was obtained fraudulently, no sirdari right could accrue to the defendant Sri V.P. Tripathi, SDO Moth, therefore, decided all the issues against the defendant by means of his order date 23-2-1979. 5. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant Parasuram went in revision before the Divisional Commissioner. Sri V.K. Saxena, learned commissioner while dismissing the revision has observed that: "Before parting with this case I want to observe that it is a serious matter that the photostat copy of the order of the SDO has been filed but the decree upon which sirdari rights were claimed by the defendant is clearly in contravention of the judgment itself. Sri V.K. Saxena, learned commissioner while dismissing the revision has observed that: "Before parting with this case I want to observe that it is a serious matter that the photostat copy of the order of the SDO has been filed but the decree upon which sirdari rights were claimed by the defendant is clearly in contravention of the judgment itself. It is most serious matter that the whole concerned court records are missing. In order to keep the sanctity of the judicial records and dignity of the process of the court a proper enquiry be made by the Collector concerned. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Collector, Jhansi for necessary action. Revision no. 84 of 1978-79 was dismissed on 28-4-1979. A revision against this order was preferred before the Board of Revenue. This revision no. 17 of 1978-79, Paras Raw v. State was dismissed on 13-12-1979. Parasuram filed a Writ Petition no. 2209 of 1980 against this order. This Writ Petition was dismissed on 10-3-1980. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court had observed that : "In my opinion the view taken by the revenue courts cannot be characterised either erroneous or perverse or arbitrary". It, however, observed that 'the question of jurisdiction can be raised by the petitioner when the matter is re-heard by the trial court and the trial court shall decide the question in accordance with law. 6. The suit was re-heard by Sri J.D Srivastava, SDO Moth. In addition to the 5 issues framed and decided by his predecessor, Sri Srivastava framed the following 4 additional issues : 1. Is the land in dispute tank? 2. Is the land in dispute property of the Gaon Sabha? 3. Is the defendant fraudulently recorded against the land in dispute? 4. Has the court jurisdiction to try the suit? He decided the issue no. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff Gaon Sabha and issue no. 3 in favour of the defendant. As regards issue no. 4 the learned trial court is of the view that until the decree which formed the basis of the defendant's entry against the land in dispute in the relevant revenue records by the consolidation authorities is annulled by a competent court of law, giving any verdict in this respect would be against law. 7. As regards issue no. 4 the learned trial court is of the view that until the decree which formed the basis of the defendant's entry against the land in dispute in the relevant revenue records by the consolidation authorities is annulled by a competent court of law, giving any verdict in this respect would be against law. 7. Aggrieved by this order dated 30-11-1985, the Gaon Sabha preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner by means of his order dated 12-2-1988 has allowed the appeal with the observation that the learned trial court has committed manifest error in law by framing additional issues and giving findings thereon. This action on the part of the learned trial court was unwarranted because the question of res-judicata, bar under section 49, maintainability of the suit etc. have already been decided by his predecessor and the findings given by it were upheld by the Board of Revenue and the Hon'ble High Court. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that in view of the fact that the decree on which the defendant sought mutation in consolidation court was fraudulent one as it was not in consonance with the judgment given in the suit which was dismissed. Before passing the mutation order, no notice was given to the Gaon Sabha nor the matter was adjudicated upon by the consolidation authorities. He has also observed that the revenue court is competent to reject such decree and the plaintiff need not to seek remedy for its annulment in the civil court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have no reason to disagree with the learned Additional Commissioner. His judgment is well discussed and well-reasoned. It is a case in which the consolidation authorities had ordered the defendant-appellant to record him as sirdar on the basis of a decree which was not in consonance with the judgment. Where the decree is not in consonance with the judgment, any entry based on such decree is fraudulent. The defendant-appellant has, therefore, no case. 9. In the result, this appeal has no force and is consequently dismissed. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner date 12-2-1988 is upheld.