JUDGMENT

Jagdish Sahai, J. - By means of this application it has been prayed by the Respondents that inasmuch as a dispute is pending between the parties before the consolidation authorities in respect of the Bhumidhari plots falling in the villages mentioned in the plaint giving rise to this appeal, the hearing of the present appeal be stayed under the provisions of Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Mr. Mohammad Hussain, who has appeared for the Applicant, places reliance upon Kushar v. Ahmad Khan 1962 AWR 391, Dalel v. Baroo 1963 AWR 230 FB, Smt. Ram Kuer v. Jangi 1964 ALJ 718 and Ram Lal v. Assistant Collector, Sadabad, District Mathura 1966 AWR 140.

3. This application is opposed by Sri Harish Chandra, who contends that the reliefs sought in this case cannot be granted by the consolidation authorities with the result that Section 5 of the Act would not apply and the hearing of the appeal cannot be stayed.

4. This arises out of suit No. 11 of 1948. The reliefs claimed in the plaint read:

(A) A decree for proprietary and actual possession in respect of 3/4th shares of the property made waqf and the property given in para 2 of this plaint may be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant or the proper Defendant.

(B) Any other relief which may be consonant with justice and be admissible on the merits of the case may be granted to the Plaintiff against the Defendants and the mesne profits during the pendency of the suit be made payable on the payment of court fee.

(C) The cost of the suit may be made payable by the Defendants.

The case set up in the plaint is that Khwaja Basit Husain, the brother of the Plaintiff, Khwaja Syed Kazim Husain Gailani, was the owner of certain Zamindari property in respect of which the Respondent No. 2, who was a young and newly married wife of Khwaja Basit Husain got the latter to make waqf with a view to defeat the right of inheritance of the Plaintiff. It was also pleaded that for several reasons the waqf was illegal and ineffective. The suit was contested on several pleas. The exact nature of the pleadings of the parties would appear from the issues framed in the suit, which read:

1. Is the waqf deed invalid for any of the reasons alleged in para 8 of the plaint?

2. Does there obtain any custom set up in para 25 of the written statement?

3. (a) Whether any portion of the dower debt of Defendant No. 2 remains unpaid?

(b) If so, to what effect?

4. To what relief is Plaintiff entitled?

The suit was dismissed with cost by the learned Civil Judge, Hardoi, who tried it and this appeal is directed against that decree.

5. Admittedly the Zamindari property in respect of which the suit was filed now vests in the State of U.P. The dispute between the parties would, therefore, now be confined only to the compensation amount in respect of this property, in deposit in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Hardoi and the rehabilitation bonds which are with the Compensation Officer, Hardoi. We are informed that in the Zamindari property to which the suit,, giving rise to this appeal, related, were situated some Sir and Khudkasht plots also belonging to Khwaja. Basit Husain or the waqf and there is dispute between the parties in respect of those plots. However, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties that those plots are not directly involved in the present appeal.

6. Mr. Mohd. Husain contends that any dispute with regard to Bhumidhari and Sirdari plots can be adjudicated upon only by the forums provided by the Act and not in civil courts and that inasmuch as the Sir and Khudkasht plots belonging to Khwaja Basit Husain or the waqf are now Bhumidhari plots, the consolidation authorities alone can decide as to who is the Bhumidhar of the same, the. Plaintiff or the Defendants. Mr. Mohd. Husain adds that if the suit is looked at, as a whole, it would appear that now the dispute substantially is with regard to Bhumidhari plots and for that reason the hear