JUDGMENT :

Jahangir Jamshed Munir, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal from a judgment and decree of Sri K.N. Pandey, the then Third Additional District Judge, Jaunpur, dated 21.1.1992, dismissing Civil Appeal No. 236 of 1982 with costs, and affirming an original decree of Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, the then Third Additional Munsif, Jaunpur, dated 17.9.1982, passed in Original Suit No. 517 of 1980, dismissing the said suit for reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction and cancellation. This appeal was admitted to hearing on the substantial question of law, whether the suit is barred under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

2. This Appeal was heard on the said question of law on 27.2.2019 and judgment was reserved. This Court felt that some other questions of law, relative to the question last mentioned, but framed in more specific terms, that would enable parties to better address the Court on their respective case, were required to be framed. Accordingly, this Appeal was posted for further hearing on 1.5.2019. On the said date, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

"(i) Whether a suit held barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act would entail a decree of dismissal of the suit, or an order for return of the plaint to be presented to a Court of competent jurisdiction?

(ii) Whether the rights and title of parties to land concluded in terms of an order passed by the Consolidation Authorities and recorded as such in the Revenue Records can be re-agitated by the said parties in a suit before the Civil Court notwithstanding the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act?

(iii) Whether an order of the Consolidation Courts deciding rights of parties in terms of a compromise, not set aside on ground of fraud or otherwise within the prescribed period of limitation is relevant evidence in a subsequent suit inter partes relating to the same land litigating under the same title under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act?"

3. The first question of law as rephrased takes in its fold the substantial question law, on which this Appeal was admitted to hearing. Question Nos. 2 and 3 are added questions with reference to different issues. The learned counsel for the parties were, accordingly, heard afresh on 1.5.2019, and judgment was reserved.

4. Heard Sri Anmol Ranjan, holding brief of Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V. Singh alongwith Sri Manoj Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondent.

5. It may be indicated at the outset that the suit was filed by the two plaintiffs, Heera and Jawahir, both sons of Vishwanath Kushwaha against four defendants, to wit, Moti, Rambali, Nandlal and Ram Palat. Pending appeal before the lower Appellate Court, of the two plaintiffs, Heera died and was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives, to wit, Bansraj and Hansraj. Before this Court, the Appeal was filed by Bansraj and Hansraj, and the then surviving one of the two original plaintiffs, Jawahir. Pending this Appeal, Jawahir, plaintiff/appellant No. 3 has passed away, and is represented by his heirs and legal representatives, numbering five. Likewise, amongst the original defendants, defendant/respondent No. 1, Moti and defendant/respondent No. 2, Nandlal, have died pending this Appeal and are represented on record by their respective heirs and legal representatives. The appellants in this Appeal, shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs whereas the respondents shall be called the defendants, except where they are individually referred to.

6. The suit in this case was instituted on 6.12.1980 seeking reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession in the suit property as detailed in Schedule-A to the plaint, and to refr