JALPA SAHAI Vs. TRIBHUNATH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff arising out of the following facts:

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents next argued that that share of the plot sold which belonged to Pheru was protected u/S. 168A because Pheru had a plot contiguous to the disputed plot. This argument too cannot prevail. The sale of the entire area is jointly in the names of Pheru and the other three co -vendees. No demarcated or defined area is sold in favour of Pheru. The land being joint every vendee will have interest in every inch of land and it will be difficult to hold that the sale deed to the extent of share of Pheru would not be void. For these reasons, the above argument has no force in it.

(3.) It was next argued that the suit was barred by S. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This argument has no force in it because S. 168A applied to consolidated area. Besides this, S. 49 bars only such suits which have been decided or ought to have been decided by the consolidation authorities.