The main legal point established in the judgment is that when agricultural property is under consolidation proceedings, only the consolidation courts have the right to determine its rights and title, and civil courts have no jurisdiction in such matters.

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. –

Original Suit No. 423/1989 (Smt. Bharpai v. Bishan & Ors., was filed for relief of permanent injunction with prayer the defendants be restrained from interfering in plaintiff's possession over disputed plot No. -167; and relief of declaration was also sought that sale-deed dated 20-6-1989 executed for disputed property by defendant No. -1 Bishan in favour of defendant No. -2 Bishan is void and ineffective. This suit was also consolidated with another original suit No. 65/1990, Indraj v. Bishan, in which plaintiff had sought relief of declaration that registered sale-deed dated 20-6-1989 executed by Bishan in favour of Chandrapal be declared illegal, null and void. Thus plaintiffs of both the suits have sought relief that registered sale-deed executed by defendant No. -1 Bishan in favour of defendant No. -2 Chandrapal be declared null and void and that defendants be restrained from interfering in possession of plaintiffs of original suit No. 423/1989, who claimed : D be in possession of said property. After affording opportunity of hearing both the consolidated original suits were dismissed by judgment dated 20-12-2,000 of IInd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Ghaziabad.

2. Against this judgment the plaintiff original suit No. 423/1989, Smt. Bharpai thorugh LRs., had filed Civil Appeal No. 30/2001, which was heard and Partly decreed by judgment dated 10-9-2015 of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Ghaziabad. By this Judgment the first appellate Court had dismissed the appeal against the judgment of original suit No. 423/1989 and cencelled the registered sale-deed dated 20-6-1989 executed by Bishan in favour of Chandrapal. It is pertinent to mention that this first Civil Appeal No. 30/2001 was preferred only by the plaintiff of original suit No. 423 of 2001. Against this Judgment, present second appeal has been prereferred.

3. learned Counsel for the appellants contended that original owner of disputed land was Tejpal who has executed its sale-deed of this property in the year 1958 in favour of one Bablu, who is Predecessor interest of appellants’ side. Thereafter he had executed another sale-deed dated 4-10-1967 of same property in favour of Natthu. On 29-8-1968 Natthu had executed the sale-deed of said property in favour of Munsab and others. Then these predecessors Munsab etc. had executed the sale-deed of said property in favour of plaintiff Smt. Bharpai on 7-10-1968. He contended that once Tejpal had sold the property in dispute to Bablu (predecessor in interest of appellants) then he had no right to execute sale-deed of same property in favour of Natthu. Therefore, the sale-deeds executed by him in favour of Natthu and the sale-deeds later on in favour of successor in interest of Natthu are void; therefore, the Court below had wrongly ignored relevant facts and law and erroneously passed the judgment in first appeal which should be quashed. Therefore, this appeal should be admitted for being allowed.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that disputed agricultural property had undergone consolidation proceedings, during which consolidation Courts and later on revenue Court and also High Court had confirmed the title of Smt. Bharpai (plaintiff of original suit No. 423/1989). He contended that during consolidation the title of Smt. Bharpai had been perfected, therefore the first appellate Court had rightly held that sale-deed executed by defendant No. -1 in favour of defendant No, -2 for said property is void, so the said sale-deed was rightly cancelled. He contended that finding of fact in this regard by first appellate Court is not erroneous, therefore, there arises no question of law to admit this second appeal, which should be dismissed in limne.

5, A perusal of the pleadings as well as two judgments make it clear that disputed property is agricultural land and admittedly only the revenue Court had jurisdiction to decide its title and ownership. It is also admit