RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the orders dated 29.1.1981 whereby the second appeal filed by the contesting respondents was allowed and by the order dated 6.8.1982 the application to review and recall the order dated 29.1.1981 was dismissed. It may also be noticed here that by the order dated 29.1.1981, the Board of Revenue allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below to it and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for framing an additional issue and to decide the dispute a fresh after affording the parties to adduce evidence there on.

(2.) THE facts of the case may be noticed in brief.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the issues as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit, whether the plaintiff being the heir of Balwant is co sirdar of the plot in question and that Rajendra Singh, defendant No. 1 is the son of Balwant Singh's daughter, were framed. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The evidence was more or less in the nature of oral depositions. The Trial Court namely Assistant collector, Ist Class, Aligarh considered the evidence of the respective parties and found that Balwant and Jewa had a daughter which is evident from the birth Register produced by the defendant. In the birth register it is recorded that a daughter was born to Balwant Thakur on 19.3.1904. The said fact was found corroboration from the oral depositions made on behalf of the defendant -petitioner and consequently by the judgment and order dated 21.1.1973 the suit was dismissed. The said decree has been confirmed in appeal being Appeal No. 159 of 1972 -1973 by the Additional Commissioner by its judgment and decree dated 13.2.1975. These two judgments were challenged in second appeal No. 226 of 1974 -1975 by Ram Chander, the plaintiff -respondent No. 4 herein before the Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad. The appeal was heard and decided ex parte as is evident from paragraph -3 of the judgment.