The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata and the interpretation of the limitation period for filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

( 1 ) A suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents Kailash Nath Tewari, Surya Mani Tewari and Chandra Mani tewari against the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner Pan Kumari was also impleaded in the suit on an application filed by her. The case of the petitioner is that the ancestors of the petitioner were recorded in 1281-F and from 1320 fasali to 1359 fasali and the petitioners are in possession over the disputed land of which they were grove-holders on the date of vesting and consequently they became Bhumidhar under Section 18 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The suit was contested by the Gaon Sabha and by the petitioner. The trial court decreed the suit. Against the decree two appeals were filed one by the Gaon Sabha and the other by the petitioner. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner. Two second appeals were filed. The board of Revenue dismissed both the appeals. Against the order of the Board of Revenue a writ petition was filed by the Gaon Sabha numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50461 of 2000, which was also dismissed as withdrawn. The present writ petition has been filed by Pan Kumari.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri R. C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 3 ) IT is submitted by Sri R. C. Singh that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents was barred by section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in as much as no objection was raised in the consolidation proceedings by the plaintiffs/respondents. The other submission is that the suit is barred by limitation. On the question that the suit was barred by Section 49 of Consolidation of holdings Act the finding recorded by the trial court is that on the date of the publication of the notice under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act the plaintiffs/respondents were minors. The appellate court also affirmed the said finding. Sri R. C. Singh submitted that from the reading of the orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court it is clear that there is no specific finding upon the point of minority of the plaintiffs/respondents, which they were required to record in view of the directions in an earlier writ petition No. 41280 of 1996. I have examined the judgement of the trial court. It appears that before the trial court the plaintiffs/respondents had filed evidence showing the age of the plaintiffs. In the passport the date of birth of Chandra Mani Tewari is 25. 9. 1963 and in the High School Certificate of Kailash nath Tewari his date of birth is 13. 9. 1958 and of Sruya Mani Tewari in his High School certificate is 25. 8. 1948. Oral evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents was also adduced. The trial court found that the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was unrebutted. In effect this is a finding of minority as the trial court found that the plaintiffs evidence of minority was unrebutted. The appellate court has affirmed the finding that the plaintiffs/respondents were minors and consequently they could not file the objections within the time permissible under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Sri R. C. Singh was unable to refer to any document filed by the defendant/petitioner in the trial court or in the 1st appellate Court regarding the age of the plaintiffs/respondents. He however submitted that in the board of Revenue an application for additional evidence was filed by the petitioner in which certain documents including C. H. Form 11 showing Surya Mani as major and guardian of the other plaintiffs were sought to be filed but the Board of Revenue did not pass any order on that application. In reply it has been stated in para 19 of the counter affidavit that the appeal was heard by the Board on 6. 9. 2000 and no such application was pressed or filed until the judgment on 21. 9. 2000. According to the responde