NARESH CHANDRA Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision preferred against the Judgement and order dated 28-5-87 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division Bareilly in appeal No. 38/71 of 1987 filed against the order dated 24-1-1986 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Bisalpur in case no 31 under Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, to be called the "Act" hereinafter.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that a suit under Sec. 229-B of the Act was brought by deceased respondent Smt. Rajrani daughter of Baldeo Prasad and wife of Sri Ram Swaroop resident of Mohalla Pheelkhana, District Pilibhit against Sri Brij Behari resident of Baldeo Prasad resident of village Barkhera, Pargana and tehsil Besalpur, District Pilibhit and Gaon Sabha and the state with the allegations that the land in suit consisting of Plot No. 109 (area 93 decimals) and 189 (37 decimals) of Village Barkhera Pargana and Tehsil Bisalpur District Pilibhit was acquired by Smt. Radhikadevi widow of Baldeo prasad was the recorded cotenant along with one Asharfi Lal but the defendant Brij Behari Lal Who is the son of her husband Baldeo Parsad with the previous wife has got no concern with the land in dispute while her husband Baldeo Prashad executed a will deed in favour of Smt. Radhikadevi the mother of the by the defendants and was decreed ex parte under Judgement and decree dated 25-1-85 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Offer Bisalpur District Pilibhit. Restoration application were filed by Brij Behari Lal and one Naresh Chander The revisionist on the grounds that they did not have any knowledge about the pendency of the suit which was decreed ex-parte and the fact is that the land in dispute was transferred by defendant Brij Behari Lal and under a registered sale-deed dated 5-12-1984 executed in favour of revisionist Naresh Chandra who is in possession from the date of transfer over the land in suit at Sri Naresh Chandra was not impleaded as party in spite of the fact that the fact of transfer was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff the restoration application were filed on 25-3-85 by Sri Naresh Chandra, revisionist and on 6-6-85 by defendant Brij Behari Lal. Objection were filed by Smt. Rajrani and ultimately the restoration application of the revisionist was rejected under the judgement and order dated 24-1-1986 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Bisalpur against which a revision was preferred before the Commissioner which was also dismissed under the Judgement and order dated 25-5-87 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly giving rise to the present revision in this court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record.