suit for declaration that the suit property was a joint family property and that he was entitled to be recorded as holder in respect of said property. =the suit of the plaintiff was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the judgment of the lower appellate court is not in accordance with law and deserves to be set aside.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3460 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.4083 OF 2019)
KISHORI LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRs. Appellant
VERSUS
RAM GOPAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRs. & ANR. Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The present appellant had filed a suit for declaration
that the suit property was a joint family property and that he
was entitled to be recorded as holder in respect of said
property. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but the
appeal arising therefrom was allowed by the appellate court
and the suit filed by the appellant was decreed.
In second appeal preferred by the defendant, the High
Court set-aside the finding recorded by the lower appellate
Court. The High Court observed as under:

2
�After considering the rival submissions, it is clear
that the plaintiff was not recorded in the revenue
records and it was his father, defendant No.3, who
was recorded in the revenue record. Therefore,
prima-facie the title of the plaintiff was not clear.
The claim to the land on the basis of being a Joint
Hindu Family property and the plaintiff having half
share therein was required to be adjudicated by the
competent revenue court or the consolidation court
and civil court was not competent to adjudicate the
same. The plaintiff did not file any objection
before the consolidation court. Even before the
civil court there was no relief of adjudication of
his title sought in the plaint. The suit was filed
presuming his title by the plaintiff and cancellation
of sale deed executed by his father in favour of
defendant Nos.1 and 2 and ancillary relief of
possession and damages against the defendant Nos.1
and 2. Therefore, the main relief of the plaintiff
for cancellation of sale deed was not maintainable at
all in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court
in the case of Ram Padarath (supra) relied upon by
the counsel for the respondent. The trial court
rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by its
judgment and decree dated 07.08.1980 which was
reversed by the lower appellate court on the basis of
Hindu coparcenary law, which is not applicable to the
suit property in view of the enforcement of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The
judgments relied upon by the counsel for the
appellant are applicable to the facts of the case.
Therefore, the substantial question of law framed in
this Appeal is decided holding that the suit of the
plaintiff was barred by Section 49 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act and the judgment of the
lower appellate court is not in accordance with law
and deserves to be set aside.
The second appeal is allowed. Parties shall bear
their own costs.�
This Court issued notice on 11.02.2019 whereafter the
respondents have appeared in the matter.

3
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well
as learned counsel for the respondents.
Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel for the
respondents invited our attention to items 1, 4, 11 and 14 of
the Second Schedule to U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950. He also invited our attention to Section
331 of the Act.
Sub-section 1 of Section 331 reads as under:
�331. Cognizance of suits etc. under this Act.�(1)
Except as provided by or under this Act, no Court
other than a Court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule
II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), take
cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings
mentioned in column 3 thereof or of a suit,
application or proceedings based on a cause of action
in respect of which any relief could be obtained by
means of any such suit or application:
Provided that where a declaration has been made
under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part
thereof, the provisions of Schedule II insofar as
they relate to suits, applications or proceedings
under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or
part thereof.
Explanation� If the cause of action is one in
respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue
Court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for
from the civil Court may not be incidental to that
which the revenue Court would have granted.�
It was submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior
counsel that in respect of matters covered in Second Schedule
to the Act, action claiming said reliefs can be maintained
before the authorities mentioned in the Schedule and, as such,

4
the High Court was right in allowing the second appeal
preferred by the original defendant.
After having heard learned counsel for both sides, we see
no reason to take a different view in the matter.
In our view, the High Court was right in allowing the
second appeal. We, therefore, affirm the decision of the High
Court. We, however, give a month�s time to the appellant to
present an appropriate application before the competent
authority in terms of the Second Schedule to the Act. If and
when such an application is preferred, the concerned authority
shall deal with and dispose of the same purely on merits.
With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
……………………………J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
……………………………J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 8, 2019

5
ITEM NO.59 COURT NO.8 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4083/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-07-2018
in SA No.679/1987 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad)
KISHORI LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRs. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAM GOPAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRs. & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; IA No.184784/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T.; and, IA No.13831/2019-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 08-04-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
For Petitioner(s) M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR
Mr. Jabar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mahavir Singh, Adv.
Mr. Yatendra Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR

      UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                         O R D E R

Leave granted.
The Civil Appeal is disposed of, in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MUKESH NASA) (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed Order is placed on the File)