JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This second appeal has been filed by Sri Jangi Singh under Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 18.10.1948. The learned Additional Commissioner passed that decree and judgment in appeal No. 192 of 1976-77 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment of the trial Court dated 13.11.1975. The trial court has passed that judgment and decree in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The trial court has dismissed the suit of plaintiff-appellant. 2. This is admitted fact that the village of the disputed plot was in consolidation operation. After the consolidation operation Jangi Singh filed the suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Class that he is bhumidhar of plot No. 1066 area 0-10, 1066 area 0-24, 1075 area 0-21, 1080 area 0-41, 1080 area 0.15 and 1139 area 0-16 of Village Kumhraon, Pergana and Tahsil and District Mainpuri. 3. The suit was contested by Gaon Sabha, that the appellant-Plaintiff has no claim over the dispute plots and there has been consolidation in the village. The trial court framed four issues that whether the plaintiff is in possession if so its effect, whether the suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, whether the notice under Section 80 C.P.C has been given or not if so its effect. 4. Trial Court after taking the evidence dismissed the suit, that the plaintiff has not acquired the bhumidhari rights. He also held that the suit is barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. He also held that the suit is defective as no notice under Section 80 C.P.C., was proved to have been given to the State. The appeal was also dismissed, that suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Against this judgment of the appellant court this second appeal has been filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no specific plea about the bar of the suit under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, hence no issue could have been framed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no specific plea about the bar of the suit under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act, hence no issue could have been framed. Both the courts have committed illegality upholding suit is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel on this point. This is plea that there was consolidation in the village. The issue was framed no objection was raised at the earliest opportunity, therefore, both the courts below decided the issued. Plot No. 1075 area 0-21, plot number 1080 area 0-15 and plot number 1139 area 0-16 is recorded as Narin Parti. It means these plots are made of the area which has been left out as surplus after carving the chak of the tenure-holders, thus these plots cannot be original plot of the plaintiff-appellant. The valuation of corresponding old plots has been given to the tenure-holders. Thus the claim of the appellant that he is in possession over the land in dispute from the enforcement of Z.A. and L.R. Act is negatived in respect of these plots. Plot No. 1066 area 0-10 and 1080 area 0-41 was recorded as Banjar, no cultivation is shown over these plots before consolidation. Hence, possession is not proved before that. In these circumstances the claim of the appellant is not proved. Both the courts below have rightly dismissed the suit. There is no force in this appeal and, therefore, it is accordingly dismissed.