KAILASH RAI Vs. JAIJAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, relates to the proper interpretation to be placed on S. 18, sub-section (1) cl. (2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951) hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the claim of the plaintiff based upon the provision quoted above, it is necessary to set out the pedigree which is as follows : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_527_1_1973Image1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) MR. S. K. Bagga, learned counsel for the defendants, urged that the appellant should have really filed an appeal against the order of the High Court dated July 27, 1965, in and by which it called for a finding regarding the possession of the properties. Not having challenged that order, the counsel urged, it is no longer open to the appellant to challenge the final order of the High Court accepting the finding submitted by the District Court. The counsel further contended that the decision of the High Court is in accordance with the view held in a previous decision reported in Rama Kant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1966 All 173. When the defendants have been found to be in cultivatory possession of the properties, the view of the High Court negativing the appellant's claim is, according to MR. Bagga, fully justified.