JUDGMENT This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.08.1985, passed by the then Civil Judge, Roorkee, in Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1979, whereby the said first appellate court has set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1979, passed by the trial court in Suit No. 131 of 1977, and decreed the suit for possession over the land in dispute. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused of lower court record. 3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiffs/respondents instituted Suit No. 131 of 1977 against the defendants/appellants before Munsif Roorkee, with the pleading that disputed land forming part of Khasra No. 165, measuring area 4 biswa 5 biswansi, settled with the plaintiffs under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951). Defendant No. 1, who was Pradhan of the Village Majri, Tehsil Roorkee, got 3 biswas land (adjoining to the disputed land) of Khasra No. 165 allotted in his favour and instituted proceedings under Section 122B of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, alleging that the disputed land forms part of the land of gaon sabha. However, the said proceedings were finally terminated in favour of the plaintiffs and it was found that the plaintiffs possession over the land in dispute was from the period prior to the abolition of Zamindari. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they used the disputed land from the period prior to the Zamindari abolition as appurtenant land to their house. They used to tether their cattle and keep their garbage on it. But, on 03.09.1977, defendants encroached upon the land in dispute and raised wall to add the disputed land with the 3 biswas land allotted to defendant No. 1. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendant No. 1 to 4 (present appellants) contested the suit and filed their written statement. They denied the claim of the plaintiffs that the land is owned by them. It is pleaded that the land of Khasra No. 165 was left in consolidation proceedings for abadi. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendant No. 1 to 4 (present appellants) contested the suit and filed their written statement. They denied the claim of the plaintiffs that the land is owned by them. It is pleaded that the land of Khasra No. 165 was left in consolidation proceedings for abadi. It is also pleaded that the land of old plots No. 341/2 (area 1 biswa); 342 (area 13 biswa); 333 (area 6 biswa); 344 (area 6 biswa); 345 (area 6 biswa); 346 (area 2 biswa); and 346/2 (area 10 biswa) form part of Khasra No. 165. In all said Khasra has a total area of 2 bigha 3 biswa. It is alleged by the defendants No. 1 to 4 that 8 biswa land of old plot No. 343 was allotted to one Asha Ram (grand father of defendant No. 3 Buddhu), who bequeathed the land of the defendants. It is further pleaded that since then defendants are in possession of the land in dispute which is part of land allotted to Asha Ram. An objection has been raised in the written statement that suit is barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as no objections were raised by the plaintiffs before the consolidation authorities. Defendant No. 5 Gaon Sabha (which was impleaded during the pendency of suit) has filed separate written statement and alleged that the possession of the plaintiffs as well as that of the defendants No. 1 to 4 over plot No. 165 is illegal. It is pleaded that defendant No. 1, when he was village Pradhan has occupied the disputed land, illegally. 5. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed following issues : 1. Whether, the plaintiffs are in possession over the disputed land from the period prior to Zamindari abolition, if so, has the disputed land settled with the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the Gaon Sabha is a necessary party? If so, is the suit not maintainable for non-joinder of said party? 3. Whether, defendant No. 2 is not a necessary party and is the suit bad for mis-joinder of said party? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? 5. Whether, the suit is under valued and court fee paid in insufficient? 6. If so, is the suit not maintainable for non-joinder of said party? 3. Whether, defendant No. 2 is not a necessary party and is the suit bad for mis-joinder of said party? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? 5. Whether, the suit is under valued and court fee paid in insufficient? 6. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court gave a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were in possession over the land in dispute from the period prior to zamindari abolition, as such, it cannot be said that the land is settled in them under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (other findings are not relevant for the purposes of this appeal). The trial court dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 06.10.1979, against which the plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1979, before the first appellate court. (Before creation of district Haridwar, Tehsil Roorkee formed part of district Saharanpur, U.P.). The first appellate court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 06.08.1985 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit for possession against the defendants. Hence, this appeal was filed by the defendants before the Allhabad High Court on 03.09.1985, where it was admitted on 04.09.1985, on following substantial question of law : Whether, finding of fact recorded by the trial court on the issue No. 1 has been reversed by the first appellate court on the conjectural grounds without assessment of the evidence and, therefore, the said court has committed illegality? The appeal is received by this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000). Answer to substantial question of law : 7. It is admitted to the parties that land in dispute forms part of Khasra No. 165 (village Majri). It is also not disputed between the parties that 3 biswa land of plot No. 165 was allotted in favour of one Asha Ram (grand father of defendant No. 3). It is also not disputed that defendant No. 1 had been Pradhan of Village Majri. It is also not disputed between the parties that 3 biswa land of plot No. 165 was allotted in favour of one Asha Ram (grand father of defendant No. 3). It is also not disputed that defendant No. 1 had been Pradhan of Village Majri. The dispute between the parties is whether, the disputed land formed part of appurtenant land of the house of the plaintiffs and settled with them under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and has the defendants illegally encroached upon said land, as pleaded in the plaint. The trial court gave the finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the land has settled with them under Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. However, the lower appellate court has given a categorical finding after discussing the entire evidence on record, that the plaintiffs were in possession before the period of zamindari abolition and the disputed land had settled with them, as such, the possession of the defendants No. 1 to 4, is illegal. While, arriving said finding the lower appellate court has taken note of the fact that the proceedings under Section 122B initiated by Gaon Sabha against the plaintiffs terminated in their (plaintiffs’) favour in which it was found that the disputed land had been the land appurtenant to the house of the plaintiffs. The lower appellate court has further taken note of the fact that allotment in favour of Asha Ram of the land of Khasra No. 165 was only of 3 biswas. In this connection, lower appellate court has particularly mentioned that it has come on record that 3 biswa land of old plot No. 343 was allotted to Asha Ram from whom the defendants are claiming inheritance (through a will which is not proved), as such, the defendants’ case that the land allotted is 8 biswas cannot be accepted the total area of plot No. 343 was 6 biswa, only. It is further observed by the lower appellate court that since, defendant No. 1 was Pradhan and in possession of the record, he appears to have manipulated the area as 8 biswas (which was initially 3 biswas only). 8. Having gone through the evidence on record, this Court finds that lower appellate court’s finding on issue No. 1, cannot be said to be based on conjunctures or against the record. 9. 8. Having gone through the evidence on record, this Court finds that lower appellate court’s finding on issue No. 1, cannot be said to be based on conjunctures or against the record. 9. First submission advanced on behalf of the defendants/appellants before this Court is that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the same was barred by Section 331 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951). Perusal of said sanction shows that it is provided in sub-section (1-A) of Section 331 that notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), an objection that a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II, or, as the case may be, a civil court, which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or, proceeding, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. The perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants No. 1 to 4 shows that no objection as to the jurisdiction of the civil court has been specifically taken under Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, nor any issue has been pressed on it. What has been pleaded in the written statement of defendants No. 1 to 4 is that the suit is bared by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. As such, this Court does not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the defendants/appellants. Apart from this, it is significant to note that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under sub-section (1) of Section 331 of the aforesaid Act only in respect of suits, applications or, proceedings mentioned in column 3 of Schedule II of the Act (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, Perusal of the II Schedule of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, clearly shows that it does not mention the disputes raised as to settlement of land under Section 9 of said Act. As such, disputes relating to settlement of wells, trees in abadi and buildings and land appurtenant thereto under Section 9 are not covered under the II Schedule of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 151. 10. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the defendants/appellants drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down in Ram Awalamb Vs. Jata Shankar and others, 1968 Revenue Decisions 470 (FB); Kamla Prasad Vs. Krishnha Kant Pathak, (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 213 and Ram Padarath and others Vs. Second Additional D.J. Sultanpur and others; 1989 Revenue Decisions 21 (FB) and argued that the civil court has no jurisdiction in respect of the reliefs which can be claimed by the plaintiffs under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, in the revenue courts. The land in dispute in referred cases was bhumidhari agricultural land and not the abadi land. None of the aforesaid cases pertain to the dispute of settlement of wells, trees in abadi and buildings and land appurtenant thereto under Section 9 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Also, there is no applicability of Section 209 or 229 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, to present case as the same relate to ‘holdings’ (agricultural land of the tenure holders). 11. As far as the plea that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1954) is concerned, it is again pertinent to mention here that the land in dispute is not the agricultural land but the abadi land. In the written statement itself defendants No. 1 to 4 have pleaded that land of Khasra No. 165 has been left for abadi by the consolidation authorities. Apart from this, in Suba Singh Vs. Mahendra Singh; AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1657, the Apex Court has held that where the consolidation proceedings were initiated and finalized long back, merely for the reason that a Notification under Section 52 of said Act has not been issued, it cannot be said that the suit is barred in the civil court under Section 49 of the Act. Mahendra Singh; AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1657, the Apex Court has held that where the consolidation proceedings were initiated and finalized long back, merely for the reason that a Notification under Section 52 of said Act has not been issued, it cannot be said that the suit is barred in the civil court under Section 49 of the Act. It is not a case where rights of tenure holders over agricultural land are to be determined by the consolidation authorities, as such, this Court is of the view that the civil court had the jurisdiction to grant the relief of possession in respect of a land which is pleaded to have been settled under Section 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 12. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the defendants/appellants that the lower appellate court after framing the additional issues should have given opportunity to the parties for adducing additional evidence, and the finding recorded by the lower appellate court, as such, is erroneous in law. Having gone through the impugned judgment and decree, I found that the argument advanced on behalf of the defendants/appellants is misconceived for the reason that no additional issues have been framed by the lower appellate court. There are three ‘points of determination’ which are being misread as additional issues on behalf of the defendants/appellants. As such, this court does not find any force in the above argument. Accordingly, the substantial question of law stands answered against the defendants/appellants. 13. For the reasons as discussed above, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed with costs.