RAM KISHAN Vs. PRITHIVI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 27.05.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner in Z.A. Second Appeal No. 19 of 2002 -03.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner filed a Suit No. 19 of 1998 -99, under Section 209/229B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, in the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Rishikesh against the respondents, while respondent no.2 also filed suit No. 14 of 1990 -91 under Section 229 B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, and third suit was filed by respondent no. 3 under Section 229 B of the U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act. All the three suits were consolidated by the Trial Court in view of the common subject matter (land) and same parties. Vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.1999, learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the petitioner, however, suits filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3, herein, were decreed against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner, herein, preferred Z.A. Appeal No. 16 of 1998 -99 before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, challenging dismissal of his suit, which was allowed by the Addl. Commissioner (Administration), Garhwal vide judgment and order dated 10.8.2000. Learned First Appellate Court was pleased to remand the matter to the Trial Court on the ground that Trial Court has not signed few ordersheets and few pages of the statements on oath of the witness. Feeling aggrieved, Second Appeal was preferred by respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, herein, before the Board of Revenue, however, after the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, appeal was transferred to Uttarakhand and it was allowed by the Addl. Chief Revenue Commissioner, Dehradun, vide judgment dated 27.5.2005. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and possession and was further pleased to decree the suit pertaining to the same very land filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioner declaring respondent nos. 2 and 3 as bhumidhar of land in question. No appeal was preferred by the petitioner, herein, against the decree passed by the Trial Court in a suit filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3, therefore, decrees passed in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 have attained finality pertaining to the same very land. Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest judgment, in the case of Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and another v. Meenakshi Ammal and others, 2015 3 SCC 624, has held as under :