RAJESH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition questions the judgment and decree of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 21.01.2001 in a suit under Section 229 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act). The judgment and decree has been affirmed by the learned Additional Commissioner in appeal and subsequently by the Board of Revenue in revisions, which order is also under challenge. The petitioners were not a party to the suit and they sought leave to appeal which was rejected and the appeal was also dismissed and affirmed by the Board of Revenue.

(2.) THE background of the case is that one Devi Prasad, who was the tenure holder of the land in dispute, was recorded as Bhumidhar. He happens to be the predecessor in interest of respondents 4 to 11 herein. One Ram Narain filed a suit against Devi Prasad, which was a money suit and upon being decreed, the disputed holdings became subject matter of sale in the execution proceedings of the said suit. The suit being Suit No. 257/60 was decreed and the execution Case No. 93/61 proceeded, in which the sale was held on 11.9.1962. The property in dispute came to be purchased by Gokul Prasad. Needless to mention that Gokul Prasad is the brother-in-law of Devi Prasad. The respondent no. 3 Smt. Vimla Devi is the legal heir of late Gokul Prasad.

(3.) THE transferees under the said sale deeds including the petitioners were sought to be impleaded by Gokul Prasad through an application. The trial court rejected the application on 16.04.1983. Simultaneously another event took place namely that the petitioners succeeded in getting their names mutated in summary proceedings on 20.04.1983 and 06.06.1983 on the basis of the sale executed by Devi Prasad. Devi Prasad died on 01.02.1984 leaving behind his widow Savrani and the respondents 4 to 11, who are his heirs. Gokul Prasad filed appeals against the mutation orders against the petitioners, which was also dismissed and he died on 31.12.1992 during the pendency of the suit leaving behind the respondent no. 3 Smt. Vimla Devi as his heir. The suit came to be decreed on 23.05.2011. The present petitioners were not parties to the suit as their impleadment had already been rejected. They, however, preferred appeals which came to be dismissed holding that the petitioners having purchased the property during the pendency of the suit and therefore had no right to maintain the appeal. Against which, they preferred four separate revisions, which have also been dismissed on 11.01.2007. Hence this petition.