JUDGMENT

D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code by Oin Prakash against the order elated 8-1-1964,of the Ist Munsif of Bulandshahr - deciding issue No. 2 against him and at the same time directing him to :amend the plaint by having unnecessary pleas and reliefs deleted therefrom.

2. Om Prakash claims to be the adopted son of Smt. Janki, opposite party No. 1 widow of Lachhman Prasad, though she is not admitting this fact. However, there was litigation between them and by virtue of the compromise decree passed in that suit Om Prakash can claim to be the adopted son of Smt. Janki. Smt. Janki had inherited from her husband properties including agricultural land. Consolidation operations started in the village after the passing of the above compromise decree, but Om Prakash slid not make an objection under Sec, 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to be referred hereinafter as the Act), as amended in 1958, within the period prescribed. He tiled an objection after the expiry of the period, but the consolidation authorities did not condone the delay with the result that the objection was rejected on the ground of limitation. The consolidation authorities, therefore, allotted a chak to Smt. Janki.

3. It was after the issue of the notification under Section 52 of the Act that Om Prakash instituted the present suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants opposite parties, namely, Smt. Janki and others, from transferring or in any way damaging the properties detailed at the bottom of the plaint, which belonged to Lachhman Prasad deceased and which are according to the plaintiff, in his possession as the adopted son of Lachhman Prasad and of which he is the owner as such. The properties in dispute consisted of two houses, one Gher and Bhumidhari plots.

4. The defendants contested the suit and denied the rights of the plaintiff, his being the adopted son of Lachhman Prasad and Smt. Janki and of his having any right in the properties in dispute. It was further pleaded that Section 49 of the Act as a bar to the maintainability of the suit as far as the Bhumidhari land was concerned.

The Munsif framed issue No. 2 as below:

"Whether the suit is barred by Section 49 C. H. Act ?" and as already mentioned above, has decided this issue against the plain tiff, in other words, he recorded the finding that the present suit with regard to Bhumidhari and was not maintainable and the plaint deserved to be struck off to this extent. It was for this reason that an opportunity was given to the plaintiff to have the plaint suitably amended by deleting unnecessary pleas and reliefs.

5. Three points have been urged before me: firstly, Section 49 of the Act places a bar on the entertainment of a suit till the issue of the notification under Section 32 of the Act, and not to a suit instituted after the issue of such a notification; secondly, the proceedings conducted by the consolidation authorities are of the nature of mutation proceedings governed by the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, and consequently Section 49 is no bar to the maintenance of the present suit; and thirdly the compromise decree was binding upon Smt. Janki and also upon her transferees and the effect of this decree could not be taken away with the result that whatever the decision of the consolidation operations may be the plaintiff could assert his rights on the basis of that decree.

6. In this connection it was also mentioned that the plaintiff was not trying to disturb the chak allotted to Smt. Janki. What he wanted was that she may remain in possession of the land during her life-time, but should not transfer the land to anyone.

7. The present suit was instituted prior to the amendment of the Act under the Amending Act of 1963. Reference shall, therefore, be made to the Act as in force in 1962;

The material part of Section 49 runs as below:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, t