S.S. Sandhawalia, J.

1. This civil revision under Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur dated the 11th of August 1980. The learned Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner claiming that both the appeal and the suit, from which the same had arisen had abated under Section 4(c) of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.

2. The plaintiff petitioner had instituted a title suit No. 54 of 1965 in the court of the subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur, for declaration that he is the next reversioner of late Chatradhari Singh, primarily on the ground that the deed of surrender dated 13th of July, 1955 executed by opposite party No. 2 in favour of opposite party No. 1 (describing herself as Ram Dulari) was illegal and not binding on the petitioner after the death of opposite party No. 2. The case set up on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner is that the said Chhatradhari Singh before his death in the year 1935, had executed a deed of gift in respect of his property in favour of his two widows, namely Suphalman Kuer and Ram Sakhi Kuer on the 13th of December, 1934 giving them a life interest in the estate. Suphalman Kuer later died on the 24th of February 1952 and according to the principles of survivorship her share also devolved upon opposite party No. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that Ram Dulari, who was the daughter of the said Chhatradhari Singh, had died in the year 1950. However opposite party No. 1 who is the daughter of the sister of opposite party No. 2 had, with the dishonest intention of defeating the claim of the petitioner and usurping the property got a fraudulent and illegal deed of surrender executed by opposite party No. 2 describing herself as Ram Dulari aforesaid.

3. Briefly, the case set up on behalf of opposite party No. 2 is that she is in fact Ram Dulari daughter of the aforesaid Chhatradhari Singh and, therefore the petitioner being the agnate of the late Chhatradhari Singh had no right to maintain the suit.

4. The title suit aforesaid was dismissed by the learned 2nd Additional subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur by his judgment and decree dated the 15th of June, 1973. Thereby he categorically held that opposite party No. 1 is really Ram Dulari, daughter of late Chhatradhari Singh, and therefore, the petitioner being only a presumptive reversioner had no superior right and the suit was not maintainable. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred title appeal No. 66 of 1973 in the court of the District Judge, Muzaffarpur. It would appear that during the pendency of the said appeal a notification under Section 3 of the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was duly issued with respect to the suit property. The petitioner thereupon preferred an application before the appellate court claiming that in view of the provision of Section 4(c) of the said Act both the suit and the appeal had abated. The learned appellate court, however, held that prima facie the surrender deed can not be said to be void and, indeed, needed investigation and appraisal of evidence for holding whether it suffers from any invalidity. By a detailed and lucid order under revision the learned court further repelled the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner to come to the conclusion that neither the appeal nor the suit came within the mischief of Section 4(c) of the Act and, consequently rejected the application, as stated above.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in essence, has repeated the identical arguments raised before the court below. The primal stand is that the deed or surrender is a void document and relying upon Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain Singh and Ors. A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2541 it was argued that both the appeal and the title suit would abate.

6. The stand of the learned Counsel for the petiti