ASLAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.N. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Sarwar Khan for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner filed a suit under Section 59/61 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. A copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure 1. In Paragraph 3 of the plaint the recital is that the plaintiffs are continuing in possession as proprietors of the land and therefore the entry made in the Khatauni in Ziman 8 as a hereditary tenant is incorrect. The entry should be accordingly corrected treating the petitioner to be a proprietor of the land in Ziman 2. The detail of the properties have been indicated in the plaint itself.

(2.) The suit proceeded and in the said suit the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 sought impleadment. Their impleadment was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 12.10.1993 whereafter the suit itself was decreed on 18.10.1993.

(3.) The respondents contested the said rejection of their application by filing a revision. The revision was allowed by the order dated 11.5.2011 holding that since the name of the respondents was included in the "Khewat Chausala", therefore, they were proper and necessary parties in the suit instituted under Section 59/61 of the Act. It was further observed that the Zamindars of the Mahal in question were also not made parties and therefore the trial court should proceed only after impleading them as parties and try the matter accordingly.