MAHADEO Vs. LALMANI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Second Appeal under Section 331(4) U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed against the decree and judgment dated 31-3-1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Admin). (Judicial-II) Varanasi in Appeal No. 18 of 1990 Lalmani v. Mahadeo and others whereby the appeal filed against the decree and judgment dated 2-5-1990 passed by S.D. Sadar in Suit No. 58/03/118 under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act decreeing the suit on the basis a compromise after restoring the same was allowed and the suit filed by Mahadeo and others was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of this case in brief are as follows: The Plaintiff's/Appellants Mahadeo and others brought a suit under Section 229-B of the Act on 3-10-1977 alleging that they and the defendants Lalmani and Algoo are members of a joint Hindu family and the land in dispute was acquired from joint family fund for the whole family but it was solely recorded in the name of Kalu; the predecessor of the defendants even through the plaintiff's have been continuously in joint possession there of along with the defendants; but their name could not be recorded as Co-tenants hence they claimed Co-Bhumidhar right along with the defendants in the land.

(3.) THEN an application under Section 151, 152; C.P.C. moved on 20/21-1-1988 stating therein that the parties had filed compromise and the Counsel for the plaintiff's had explained that the suit would be decided as per terms of the compromise hence the plaintiff's did not appear as a result the suit was dismissed. I was therefore prayed that the suit be restored and the same be decided in terms of the compromise.