PREM SAGAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the office report dated 15.2.1996 and 16.12.2009, service of notice on respondent No. 4 is deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court.

(2.) HEARD Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after execution of the sale deed, the name of the petitioner came to be recorded in the reve­nue record and it was only when the re­spondent No. 4, who is grandson of the vendor of the petitioner, by playing fraud got mutation of his name after expunction of the name of the petitioner and the suit was filed after the said fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that respondent No. 4 has himself moved an application before the Trial Court stating that the property was sold by his grand-father, he has no concern with the same and he has no objection in decree­ing the suit of the petitioner.