Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri C.K. Rai, Advocate, for appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondents though the case has been called in revised and name of Sri Avadhesh Singh has been shown in the cause list and counsel for respondents. In these circumstances, I proceed to hear and decide this appeal after hearing learned counsel for appellant.

2. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 12.5.2014 on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether in view of the law laid down in Azahar Husain and others v. District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1998 RD 493, the decision of the Courts below for upholding the Civil Court jurisdiction suffers from the error of law?

(ii) Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the Suit of the plaintiff-respondent is not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act is contrary to law laid down in AIR 1991 SC 249?

(iii) Whether the decree passed by the Courts below suffers from the error of law as the Courts below have acted on conjecture and surmises in ignoring the entries in the revenue papers in favour of the appellant?”

3. Both the Courts below have found that defendant-appellant was in possession of property in dispute and in the revenue record, his name was entered but observing that revenue entries have been obtained probably fraudulently, Courts below have granted injunction in favour of plaintiff by ignoring the said entries. It is contended that once the revenue entries exists in favour of defendant, the same could not have been ignored by Civil Court and the revenue entries could have been disputed before the Revenue Court. Reliance is placed on the Apex Court’s decision in Azhar Hasan and others v. District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1998 (89) RD 493.

4. Learned counsel for respondents, however, sought to support the judgments impugned in this appeal and contended that the revenue entries have rightly been ignored by Courts below since they were obtained illegally and fraudulently and, therefore, the jurisdiction of Civil Court was not barred.

5. Before answering the questions as above, it would be appropriate to look into certain relevant facts giving rise to the dispute in the present appeal.

6. Original Suit No. 417 of 1987 was instituted by Smt. Gulabi Devi and her son Ram Asrey, seeking permanent injunction in respect to property in dispute shown as ABCD in the map appended to the plaint situated in Plot No. 632/346, new number 148, area 55 kari. It is not in dispute that aforesaid property belong to one Ram Badan Pandey. The case set up by plaintiffs was that aforesaid property alongwith other holdings of Ram Badan was transferred by sale in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Gulabi Devi, widow of Ram Briksh Pandey vide registered sale-deed dated 7.7.1958 and since then it is in her possession but defendant, Kamala Prasad, an influential person, is trying to interfere in the peaceful possession of plaintiffs, therefore, should be restrained from such interference.

7. The case set up by defendant-appellant was that plaintiffs have no connection with the property in dispute and it was never in their possession. There was consolidation proceeding in the village in question in 1958 in which no attempt was made by plaintiffs at any point of time to get their name recorded in the revenue records. The disputed land was transferred by sale by Sri Ram Badan vide sale-deed dated 11.11.1985 to Vijay Shankar, Jai Prakash and Ramdei who thereafter transferred the same to the defendant vide sale-deed dated 3.2.1987 and it is recorded in revenue record in the name of defendant who is also in possession thereof. He pleaded that suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953”) as also Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act, No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”) read with Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,