BASANT SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has come up before this Court assailing the judgment and orders dated 9th July, 1990 and 27th November, 1990 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 19.02.1990 in favour of the Petitioner has been upset, and it has been held that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

(2.) THE facts are that the suit was filed by the Petitioner on the ground that the property in question was ancestral and that the pedigree being common, the name of the Plaintiff had been wrongly not recorded along with the other co -tenants. A declaration be therefore issued to that effect. The share of the Petitioner claimed in the property was 5/12.

(3.) SRI B. Malik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that none of the Respondents in spite of having served with notice have contested the matter and it was only Satya Prakash who had filed an appeal before the first appellate court and had also contested the matter in second appeal. All the other co -shares had virtually admitted the claim of the Petitioner, and therefore, it is only Satya Prakash who deserves to be heard in this matter.