SHEO PUJAN SINGH Vs. PYARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the High Court in second appeal, the appellant-defendant has filed this appeal. It is contended that the second appellate court was not justified in holding that section 168a of the. U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act, 1950 was not applicable to the facts of this case. It is submitted that in view of the admission made before the first appellate court, the respondent was estopped from pleading to the contrary, in the second appeal.

(3.) After perusal of the record, we find that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court had framed the following issues: