JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—List revised. No one appears for the respondents. 2. Heard Sri S.M.N. Bokhari, learned counsel for the appellant. 3. This is plaintiff’s appeal. Plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 469 of 1975 against Land Management Committee, Sultanpur, Khawaja Kharak and Gaon Sabha of the said village claiming that there was a Mazar surrounded by boundary wall, total area of which was about one bigha and that said Mazar and the adjoining land comprised in 15 to 20 plots (area about 50 bighas) was Waqf property, even though in the revenue record it was wrongly entered as Banjar belonging to the defendant-respondents Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee. The necessity to file the suit was that on the occasion of annual URS a fair was arranged. On the one hand Gaon Sabha and Land Management Committee and on the other hand the plaintiff claimed the right to realize teh bazari / rent from the shop keepers who sold their merchandise from specified portions of the said land allotted to them during URS period. Plaintiff also claimed that there were some graves on the adjoining land. In fact in respect of the land over which Mazar and the grave of the Suffi/Saint was situate and the land covered by the boundary wall there was no dispute. The dispute was with regard to the adjoining land. The plaintiff had asserted that on the adjoining land in dispute there were some graves. 4. It is mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court that the matter as was sub judice before Consolidation Court. These findings have been recorded under issue Nos. 4 and 5. The trial Court also held that as matter was sub judice before the Consolidation Court hence the suit was not cognizable under Section 5 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1960 (U.P. C.H. Act). 5. The suit was dismissed on 20.3.1978 by II Additional Munsif, Allahabad. Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1978. The trial Court also held that as matter was sub judice before the Consolidation Court hence the suit was not cognizable under Section 5 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1960 (U.P. C.H. Act). 5. The suit was dismissed on 20.3.1978 by II Additional Munsif, Allahabad. Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff-appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 276 of 1978. II Additional District Judge, Allahabad allowed the appeal in part and decreed the suit for injunction in respect of the land surrounded by the boundary wall around the mazar which was existing in plot No. 308 and it was declared that inside the boundary wall, plaintiff was entitled to collect the tehbazari from shop keepers and defendants were restrained from interfering in the said right of the plaintiff within the boundary wall. Rest of the suit, in respect of adjoining land, was dismissed. 6. In Para-9 of the judgment of lower appellate Court it is mentioned that appellant had filed copy of the register of Waqf maintained under U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 (since repealed by Waqf Act, 1995). It is further mentioned that in the said copy of the register, the Waqf in question had been shown at serial No. 117 and the plots mentioned therein were shown as graveyards. The said document was paper No. C-29. It was further mentioned that no revenue records like Khasara and Khatauni were filed showing the land in dispute beyond the boundary wall to be graveyard and in the revenue records filed by the other side like Khasara of 1378 Fasali etc., it was shown to be Banjar. In Para-10 of the lower appellate Court judgment reference has been made to the orders passed by the Consolidation Courts. Appellate Court in Para-10 held that few scattered graves were there in the adjoining land. 7. This second appeal was admitted on 15.4.1983 on grounds 12(ii) to (viii). The said questions were regarding nature of the property being Waqf and application of different provisions of U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 and the bar to question the nature of the property being Waqf property and regarding non impleadment of the Central Sunni Board Waqf and the question that the trial Court had held the suit to be non cognizable under Section 5 of U.P. C.H. Act and appellate Court wrongly decided the title dispute on merit without reversing the said finding. 8. 8. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the land in dispute was shown to be a Waqf land entered in Waqf register and as no challenge was made to that in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Muslim Waqf Act 1960 hence respondents were restrained from questioning the Waqf character of the land in dispute. Supreme Court in Muslim Waqf Board Rajastan v. Radha Krishnan, AIR 1979 SC 289 , while interpreting Section 6(1) and 6(4) of Waqf Act 1954 which was equivalent to Section 8 of U.P. Muslim Waqf Act, 1960 has held that the provision does not apply to non-muslims for the reason that a non-muslim cannot be said to be interested in Waqf and even if a non-muslim does not promptly object to the inclusion of a property in the register of Waqf still he is not precluded from questioning the nature of the property subsequently. The new Act i.e. Waqf Act 1995 has repealed the earlier Central Waqf Act as well as all Waqf Acts of different states. It has been provided under explanation to section 6(1) of Waqf Act 1995 that a non-muslim will also be precluded from questioning the nature of the property being Waqf if it is entered in the Waqf register as Waqf property provided that before making the said entry notice was given to him. Accordingly, entry of the land beyond the boundary wall as Waqf in the Waqf register is not binding upon the respondents. 9. As far as non-impleadment of Waqf Board is concerned, appellant being plaintiff could very well implead it in the suit. If appellant committed a mistake in not impleading the Waqf Board then he cannot claim any benefit for his mistake. 10. Appellate Court also mentioned that plaintiff did not get issued any commission in order to show that how many graves existed over the entire area. Ultimately, the appellate Court held as follows : “Plaintiff has failed to prove that the plots adjacent to these plots are also used as graveyards. It is, therefore, held that the graveyards exist in one bigha of plot No. 308 which is surrounded by boundary walls.” 11. Ultimately, the appellate Court held as follows : “Plaintiff has failed to prove that the plots adjacent to these plots are also used as graveyards. It is, therefore, held that the graveyards exist in one bigha of plot No. 308 which is surrounded by boundary walls.” 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the dispute regarding adjoining area was subsequently decided by Consolidation Courts and now the matter is pending in the form of a writ petition in this High Court and the above quoted finding of the appellate Court may jeopardise the case of the plaintiff in the said writ petition. 12. Accordingly, it is clarified that the finding of the lower appellate Court regarding nature of the adjoining land (beyond the boundary wall of the Mazar) shall not be treated to be binding between the parties for the purposes of litigation in consolidation proceedings at whatsoever stage that may be pending. The finding of the lower appellate Court must be read to mean that as in the revenue records existing at the time of decision of suit and appeal, the adjacent land in dispute was shown as Banjar hence the plea of the plaintiff that it was Waqf property could not be accepted. However, Consolidation Court is at complete liberty to decide the title dispute in respect of the adjacent land in between plaintiff and defendants. 13. With the above observations/clarification second appeal is dismissed. —————