JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Triveni Shankar, for the petitioners and Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava, who has filed caveat on behalf of respondent-4, 6 and 9. 2. The writ petition has been filed against orders of Consolidation Officer dated 02.01.2013, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 18.05.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.01.2015 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of khatas 158-Aa [consisting plot 183 (area 0.32 acre)] and 174-Aa [consisting plot 182/2 (area 0.24 acre)] of village Chhatari, pargana Shivpur, district Varanasi. In basic consolidation year, khata 158-Aa was recorded in the names of Harinath son of Jaggan, Kalicharan son of Ramayan and Nakharu son of Balkaran. Khata 174-Aa was recorded in the names of Shiu, Shivdhari, Nithuri, Phoolchand, Bihari sons of Shiv Harakh and Harinath son of Jaggan. Harinath (now represented by the petitioners) filed an objection dated 10.03.1992, for recording his name over plot 182/2 (area 0.12 acre) on the basis of decree of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 10.05.1989 passed in Suit No. 114/160 under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 4. Laiji filed a separate objection dated 12.03.1992 and Kalicharan and Nakharu filed separate objection dated 12.03.1992 for deleting the name of Harinath from plots 182/2 (area 0.12 acre) and 183 (area 0.33 acre) and declaring their 2/3 share together and 1/3 share of Lalji son of Ram Charan. It has been stated by Lalji, Kalicharan and Nakharu that they had 1/2 share in plot 182/2 (area 0.24 acre) and remaining 1/2 share in it belonged to Shiu, Shivdhari, Nithuri, Phoolchand, Bihari sons of Shiv Harakh and Harinath son of Jaggan. Plot 183 (area 0.33 acre) was property of Kalicharan Nakharu and Lalji having 1/3 share each. Harinath earlier got an agreement to sell dated 05.07.1985 of plot 183 from Lalji, showing himself as the owner of this plot. Thereafter, he filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for declaring him as bhumidhar with nontransferable right of plot 183 (area 0.32 acre) on the basis of adverse possession. When they came to know about the suit, then the matter was compromised between the parties and earnest money paid by Harinath was returned to him and he agreed to get his suit dismissed. When they came to know about the suit, then the matter was compromised between the parties and earnest money paid by Harinath was returned to him and he agreed to get his suit dismissed. A separate registered deed dated 27.12.1988 was executed by Harinath, canceling agreement to sell dated 05.07.1985. Written compromise signed by the parties was filed before Sub-Divisional Officer on 27.12.1988, which was verified by the Court. Thereafter, they being assured that the suit would be dismissed, left to attend the suit. However, later on Harinath, by committing fraud got exparte decree in the suit on 10.05.1989. Harinath was never in possession of the land in dispute. On the basis of exparte decree his name was mutated in the revenue record, which was liable to be deleted. It may be mentioned that there were other objections also, reference of which are not relevant for the purposes of this writ petition. 5. The cases were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer. Harinath died during pendency of the objection and was substituted by the petitioners. The petitioners did not adduce any documentary evidence but examined Devi Prasad and Lalji Prasad as witnesses. The respondents filed various documentary evidence and examined Bachanu Ram. Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 02.01.2013 held that from the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 72 of 1991) was filed. Appeal along with suit was abated by order of Additional Commissioner dated 25.03.1992 as such exparte decree of Additional Sub-Divisional Officer has become nonest. The petitioners could not prove their continuous possession in order to get right under Section 210 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The compromise filed by Harinath in suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is binding upon him. On these findings objections of the respondents were allowed and name of Harinath was directed to be deleted from the land in dispute and share of Kalicharan Nakharu and Lalji (now represented by respondents-4 to 12) was held as 1/3 each. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1263) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 18.05.2013 affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 989/1401) from the aforesaid orders. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1263) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 18.05.2013 affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 989/1401) from the aforesaid orders. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 15.01.2015 held that Harirath canceled agreement to sell dated 05.07.1985 through another registered deed dated 27.12.1988. Harinath also filed a compromise dated 27.12.1988 in Suit No. 114/160 of 1987 Harinath v. Lalji and others, in which he had agreed for dismissal of the suit. However, ignoring compromise, exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 was passed. On coming to know about it, an application for setting aside exparte decree was filed, which was rejected on 04.03.1991. However, the respondents filed an appeal, in which Additional Commissioner by order dated 25.03.1992 abated the appeal along with suit as such decree dated 10.05.1989 was of no effect. Possession of the petitioners has not been proved from any documentary evidence. From the date of agreement to sell dated 05.07.1985, possession of the petitioner has been not perfected to in order to confer right upon them under Section 210 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On these findings the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents, by committing fraud on Court, obtained order of Additional Commissioner dated 25.03.1992. Application for setting aside exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 was rejected by Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 04.03.1991. The predecessors of the respondents filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 72 of 1991) from the aforesaid order on 02.04.1991. On that day the appeal was directed to be registered and a date was fixed for admission. However, thereafter either due to Advocate's strike or for any other reasons, appeal was regularly adjourned and it was never heard for admission. In the meantime, even without any notice to Harinath, a fabricated vakalatnama allegedly signed by Harinath, engaging Sri Tarkeshwar Lal Srivastav, Advocate was filed on 12.09.1991 and a forged application for abating the appeal along with suit was filed by Sri Tarkeshwar Lal Srivastav, Advocate on 25.03.1992, which was allowed on the same day by Additional Commissioner. The appeal was from the order rejecting the application for setting aside exparte decree. The appeal was from the order rejecting the application for setting aside exparte decree. So long as the appeal is not allowed and exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 was not set aside, Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to abate Suit No. 114/160, under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Order of Additional Commissioner dated 25.03.1992 is without jurisdiction and is void. Exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 is binding upon the parties and consolidation authorities have illegally ignored it. The orders of consolidation authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Sakal Singh v. Smt. Devi, 1979 AWC 418 (FB), and Full Bench judgment of Board of Revenue U.P. in Mahabir v. Mangal, 1982 AWC 4 (Revenue), in which it has been held that in review application, the suit is not liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Ram Autar v. DDC and others, 1994 RD 292, Smt. Dhanpati v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, 2003 (5) AWC 4296, and Ram Naval v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, 2006 AllCJ 1343 , in which it has been held that in restoration application or appeal/revision filed from the order passed on restoration application, suit cannot be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Judgment of Supreme Court in Mool Chand v. DDC and others, AIR 1995 SC 2493 and Paras Nath Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 2013 SC 1010 , in which it has been held that if preliminary decree passed in partition suit, is not challenged, then in the proceeding for preparation of final decree or its appeal, suit will not abate. He also relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Amar Nath v. Smt. Kewla Devi, (2014) 11 SCC 273 , in which it has been held inference regarding fraud can be drawn from facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In reply to the aforementioned arguments, the counsel for the respondents submitted that allegations that the respondents by committing fraud, obtained order of Additional Commissioner dated 25.03.1992, is false and is being made for the first time in the writ petition, although this order was filed before Consolidation Officer. The petitioner did not dispute this order before consolidation authorities nor adduced any evidence to show that the order was obtained by practicing fraud. The petitioner did not dispute this order before consolidation authorities nor adduced any evidence to show that the order was obtained by practicing fraud. In fact, Harinath has been committing fraud from very beginning. Although, Kalicharan, Nakharu and Lalji were co-sharers, in the land in dispute but Harinath obtained agreement to sell from Lalji alone of plot 183 dated 05.07.1985. Later on he realised that he could not obtain decree for specific performance of contract in respect of entire area of land in dispute, then, in order to pressurise Kalicharan, Nakharu and Lalji, he filed Suit No. 114/160, under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 claiming his right by way of adverse possession over plot 183 (area 0.32 acre). When the summons of the suit was served upon other co-sharers of Lalji, then the dispute was amicably settled between the parties. Harirath canceled agreement to sell dated 05.07.1985 through another registered deed dated 27.12.1988 after taking back his earnest money. Harinath also filed a compromise dated 27.12.1988 in Suit No. 114/160 of 1987 Harinath v. Lalji and others and agreed for dismissal of the suit. The compromise was duly verified by the Court. Kalicharan, Nakharu and Lalji bonafide believed that suit would be dismissed therefore, they did not attend the dates of the suit, after filing of the compromise. Behind their back, the plaint was amended on 02.05.1989 and in relief clause plot 282/2 (area 0.12 acre) was also inserted and exparte evidence was recorded and suit was decree exparte on 10.05.1989. On coming to know about it, an application for setting aside exparte decree was filed. Sub-Divisional Officer illegally rejected the application for setting aside exparte decree, by order dated 04.03.1991, ignoring compromise. The respondents filed an appeal (Appeal No. 72 of 1991) on 02.04.1991, within time, from the order dated 04.03.1991. In the meantime, village was notified under the Act by notification dated 15.06.1991. CH Form-5 were distributed in the village on 21.02.1992 to the tenure holders. Harinath as well as Kalicharan, Nakharu and Lalji filed their objections under Section 9 (2) of the Act on 10.03.1992. Harinath, himself put appearance in the appeal and filed his vakalatnama on 12.09.1991. Exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 was obtained by committing fraud on Court and was liable to be set aside. Harinath as well as Kalicharan, Nakharu and Lalji filed their objections under Section 9 (2) of the Act on 10.03.1992. Harinath, himself put appearance in the appeal and filed his vakalatnama on 12.09.1991. Exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 was obtained by committing fraud on Court and was liable to be set aside. Therefore, Harinath, himself moved an application for abating the suit, on which Additional Commissioner by order dated 25.03.1992 abated the appeal along with suit as such decree dated 10.05.1989 has became nonest. In any case, exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 was obtained by committing fraud, decree was neither binding nor operates as res-judicata and has been rightly ignored by the consolidation authorities. Adverse possession of the petitioners was not proved from any evidence. The writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. So far as the legal proposition argued by the counsel for the petitioners that in the appeal, arising from the order, dismissing the application for setting aside exparte decree, the suit was not liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act, has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondents. However, the counsel for the respondents submitted that these case law were relevant for deciding the abatement application but not relevant for deciding the validity of the abatement order. Harinath, himself moved an application for abating the appeal as well as suit, on which order of Additional Commissioner dated 25.03.1992, abating the appeal and suit was passed. In case, Harinath had not got the appeal abated, it would have been decided on merit. Since the exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 was obtained by practicing fraud as such the appeal was liable to be allowed and exparte decree might have been set aside. As such, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the order and to say that it was without jurisdiction. Doctrine of estoppel is provided under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that when one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 346 , held that consent decree operates as estoppel against the parties. In Kedar Shashikant Deshpande v. Bhor Municipal Council, AIR 2011 SC 463 , it was held that it is well settled that if a person has submitted to the jurisdiction of the authority, he cannot challenge the proceedings, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the said authority in further appellate proceedings. 10. In this case, there was no inherent lac of jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner in deciding the appeal. In case the appeal filed by the predecessors of the respondents was allowed, then necessarily, exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 would have been set aside and the suit was liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Harinath pre-empted the matter and himself moved an application for abating the suit and appeal, in stead of taking risk to argue the appeal on merit. The counsel for the respondents rightly submitted that allegations that the respondents by committing fraud, obtained order of Additional Commissioner dated 25.03.1992, is false and is being made for the first time in the writ petition, although this order was filed before Consolidation Officer. The case law cited by the counsel for the petitioners are relevant for considering the abatement application. The order of abatement could not be challenged in these proceedings as such various case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners are not relevant for this writ petition. 11. Even if it is treated that exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 was not set aside, even then it can be ignored on the ground that it was obtained by committing fraud. Section 44 of Evidence Act, 1872 provides that any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under Section 40, 41 or 42, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion. Supreme Court in Asharfi Lal v. Smt. Koili, AIR 1995 SC 1440 and Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Sarraf, (2006) 7 SCC 756 , held that judgment obtained by committing fraud will not operate as res-judicata. Supreme Court in Asharfi Lal v. Smt. Koili, AIR 1995 SC 1440 and Jai Narain Parasrampuria v. Pushpa Devi Sarraf, (2006) 7 SCC 756 , held that judgment obtained by committing fraud will not operate as res-judicata. In Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust, AIR 1996 SC 2202 held that order obtained by practicing fraud is nullity. In Amar Nath v. Smt. Kewla Devi, (2014) 11 SCC 273 , it has been held that inference regarding fraud can be drawn from facts and circumstances of the case. 12. In this case, although, Kalicharan, Nakharu and Lalji were co-sharers, in the land in dispute but Harinath obtained agreement to sell from Lalji alone of plot 183 dated 05.07.1985. Harinath filed Suit No. 114/160, under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 claiming his right by way of adverse possession over plot 183 (area 0.32 acre) only. When the summons of the suit was served upon other co-sharers of Lalji, then the dispute was amicably settled between the parties. Harinath canceled agreement to sell dated 05.07.1985 through another registered deed dated 27.12.1988 after taking back his earnest money. Harinath also filed a compromise dated 27.12.1988 in Suit No. 114/160 of 1987 Harinath v. Lalji and others and agreed for dismissal of the suit. The compromise was duly verified by the Court. Kalicharan, Nakharu and Lalji bonafide believed that suit would be dismissed therefore, they did not attend the subsequent dates of the suit, after filing of the compromise. Behind their back, the plaint was amended on 02.05.1989 and in relief clause plot 282/2 (area 0.12 acre) was also inserted. Harinath also challenged the compromise behind their back by filing application on 15.03.1989 on which the order was passed on 27.03.1989 and exparte evidence was recorded and suit was decree exparte on 10.05.1989. On coming to know about this exparte decree, the application for setting aside decree was filed by Kalicharan, Nakharu and Lalji. Execution of the registered deed dated 27.12.1988 has not been denied. Sequence of entire facts shows that Harinath obtained exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 by committing fraud and the decree will not operate as res-judicata. It has been rightly ignored by the consolidation authorities. 13. The suit as well as objection under Section 9 (2) of the Act were filed on the basis of adverse possession. Sequence of entire facts shows that Harinath obtained exparte decree dated 10.05.1989 by committing fraud and the decree will not operate as res-judicata. It has been rightly ignored by the consolidation authorities. 13. The suit as well as objection under Section 9 (2) of the Act were filed on the basis of adverse possession. All the consolidation authorities concurrently held that the petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove their adverse possession. Finding of fact in this respect does not require interference by this Court. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.