JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Sri Lalji Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. Rekha Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and Sri Durga Charan Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 2. Petitioners have set up a case that contesting respondent Jeet Narayan Singh has filed a suit under Section 229 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act on 1.1.1976 for declaration of his title over the disputed land. The suit was contested by mother of petitioner and has filed her written statement. The other written statement was filed by Smt.Mahdei and Smt. Amar Dei and according to petitioners, the said documents are not available in the records. 3. It appears that in aforesaid suit 9 issues were framed (details of same are not on record) and it further appears that issue No. 5 was whether the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said issue was considered as a preliminary issue and learned Trial Court by an order dated 29.9.1981, decided the said issue and held that suit was barred by Section 49 of the said Act. Relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter: 4. The said order was challenged at the behest of contesting respondent i.e. plaintiff, wherein following specific grounds were taken: “Grounds of Appeal 1. Because the plff. appellant was the Bhumidhar of the land in suit was in possession as such. Consequential, he was entitled to the declaration claimed. 2. Because the issue of Sec. 49 U.P.C.H Act since a mixed question of law and fact, it could not be treated to be the preliminary point. The assumption of the learned lower Court to the contrary is manifestly wrong. 3. Because since the appellant was a minor on the relevant dates and the relevant litigation during the consolidation operation was concluded without impleading him as a party and without appointment of a guardian therefore, sec. 49 U.P.C.H Act can have no hearing in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned lower Court has acted illegally in as much as it has held the suit to be barred by Sec. 49 U.P.C.H Act. 4. Because the learned lower Court has misappreciated the order of the consolidation authorities and has not drawn correct inferences therefrom. 5. The learned lower Court has acted illegally in as much as it has held the suit to be barred by Sec. 49 U.P.C.H Act. 4. Because the learned lower Court has misappreciated the order of the consolidation authorities and has not drawn correct inferences therefrom. 5. Because the procedure adopted by the learned lower Court has been grossly irregular and it has acted illegally in not framing groper issue in the case and in improperly shutting out the appellant's evidence and in not affording him reasonable opportunity to produce the same. All this has seriously prejudiced the appellant's case. 6. Because the order of the learned lower Court being otherwise bad in law and unwarranted by the evidence on the record is liable to be set aside.” 5. The Commissioner, Varanasi decided the said appeal by an order dated 27.5.1983 and dismissed the same. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 6. The aforesaid referred two orders were thereafter challenged by way of filing a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue. In the Second Appeal following three substantial questions of law were framed: 7. The Board of Revenue considered the above referred questions of law and set aside the order dated 27.5.1983 and 25.9.1981 and remitted the matter back to Trial Court to decide the suit after framing issues and returned finding on all the issues. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that there are material on record that mother of plaintiff/contesting respondent has contested the objections during the consolidation proceeding and his interest was also protected. A primary issue was decided correctly and suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Learned counsel also submits that relevant documents are missing from the record and matter is if remitted back, it may not be decided in many years. 9. Learned counsel also submits that Board of Revenue has erroneously interfered with the concurrent findings of two Courts as well as a wrong finding was returned that details of 9 issues framed were not on record. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. 2010 (2) SCC 114 , Ashwinkumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel and others, (1993) 3 SCC 161 and Sriram and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad Camp, Fatehpur and others, (2009) 0 Supreme (All) 2646. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. 2010 (2) SCC 114 , Ashwinkumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel and others, (1993) 3 SCC 161 and Sriram and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad Camp, Fatehpur and others, (2009) 0 Supreme (All) 2646. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent submitted that primary issue whether the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was not only a question of fact but it was a mixed question of law and fact, therefore, it ought to have been decided after returning findings on all 9 issues framed. 11. I have considered the above submission and perused the record. In order to consider the rival submissions, it would be relevant to consider a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Satyanath and another v. Sarojamani, 2022 (7) SCC 644 , wherein it has been held that “preliminary issues can be those where no evidence required and on basis of reading of plaint or applicable law, if jurisdiction of the Court or bar to suit is made out, the Court may decide the such issues with sole objective of expeditious decision, however, in case where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined.” 12. In the present case, whether the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was a mixed question of law and fact, since in order to consider whether the interest of petitioner (admittedly, a minor at that time) was taken note by her mother during proceedings under Consolidation Act or not and for that the said material i.e. fact has to be looked into, however, in present case, learned Trial Court has entered into factual aspect of case also at the stage of consideration of preliminary issue on law and held that the suit was barred. 13. The aforesaid approach is absolutely contrary to Satya Nath (supra). 13. The aforesaid approach is absolutely contrary to Satya Nath (supra). The Appellate Court also committed the same error and proceeded to consider facts of case as well as law and returned finding that plaintiff was neither recorded in revenue record as a minor nor his guardian was on record, therefore, the order passed by Appellate Court was also in teeth of Satya Nath (supra). The error committed of Trial Court as well as Appellate Court was cured by Board of Revenue that all the issues has to be decided and findings has to be returned to all the issues including the issue whether the suit was barred or not. To decide a mixed preliminary issue (on fact and on law) would be an illegality. 14. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of considered opinion that in present set of facts an issue whether the suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, it ought to have been decided alongwith other issues and not as a preliminary issue only. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with impugned order and accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.