Ram Bhajan Mahto vs Bam Mahto and Another

Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.—Heard. The defendant had filed an application praying that in terms of Section 4(c) of the Consolidation Act the suit should abate as no final notification in terms of Section 26A has been issued under the Act completing the consolidation proceedings. The land, in question, is covered under notification issued in terms of Section 3 of the said Act and therefore, the proceeding should abate.

The plaintiff-opposite party has appeared.

The only ground given by the trial court in rejecting the defendant''s prayer is that the question of title cannot be decided by the consolidation authority for which it is only the Civil Court that it is competent. I am afraid the conception of the learned Judge is totally misconceived. The said question has been set at rest by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkrit Singh and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, . This judgment has been further considered in several decision and ultimately it has been held by this Court that except where there is necessity to set aside a document after calling for it, there suit will lie, that is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In other words, if a document has to be set aside, Civil Suit is maintainable but a mere declaration of title or a mere declaration that a document is void that can be done by the consolidation authority.

In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 22.11.2004 passed by the Additional Munsif, Sitamarhi in T.S. No. 20 of 2003 is set aside and the trial court is directed to allow the application of the defendant and direct the suit to abate in terms of Section 4(c) of the Act. This revision application stands allowed.