GHOORE AND ORS. Vs. MOTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 did not appear when arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are Board of Revenue, Additional S.D.O., gaon sabha and State of U.P. formal parties. Inspite of sufficient service upon Respondent No. 6, Ahmad Ali, he did not engage any Counsel.

(2.) MOTI Lal, Respondent No. 1 filed a suit under Section 229 -B of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act against the Petitioners (or their predecessors) and proforma Respondents claiming right in the agricultural land on the basis of sale deed executed by Shaukat Ali and Ahmad Ali Respondent No. 6. Petitioners contended that the vendors had no right to sell the land in dispute as they were not Bhoomidhar. The suit was registered as suit No. 528, Moti Lal v. Babu and others and was decreed on 27.01.1978 by Additional S.D.O. Jaunpur. Against the said judgment and decree Petitioners filed appeal No. 181 of 1978 which was allowed by Additional Commissioner Varanasi, Division Varanasi on 13.09.1979, judgment and decree passed by the A.S.D.O. was set aside and the suit was dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree of the appellate Court Moti Lal filed second appeal (second appeal No. 7 of 1979 -1980) before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 30.05.1992.

(3.) IT is undisputed that initially Bismillah was tenure holder of plot No. 102 area 0.50 acres and plot No. 103 area 0.07 acres and after his death the land was inherited by his three sons namely Shaukat Ali, Ahmad Ali and Mohammad Ali. Plaintiff Respondent No. 1 Moti Lal purchased whole plot No. 103 and 1/3 part of plot No. 102 from Shaukat Ali and Ahmad Ali. All the three sons were Defendant Nos. 5,6 and 7 in the suit. Babu father of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that he had purchased some other land from Bismillah and at the same time he was given plot No. 103 on sub tenancy. Simultaneously, he also pleaded adverse possession. However, no period was mentioned and other ingredients of adverse possession were also not mentioned in the plaint. In respect of plot No. 102 Moti Lal asserted that he had purchased 1/3 share. In respect of this plot Sajjad Hussain Defendant No. 2, Petitioner No. 7 and Mohd. Ayub, Defendant No. 4 since deceased and survived by Petitioners No. 8 to 10 pleaded that they had also purchased 1/3 share in the same plot prior to the sale deed executed in favour of Moti Lal. However, they had taken possession of the entire plot. They also did not plead the ingredients of ouster which are much more rigorous than the ingredients of pleas of adverse possession. The title of seller of Plaintiff could not be questioned by the Defendants as they themselves claimed that they had purchased the property from the same vendors or their father.