RAMESH CHAND Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Bench has referred these two connected Spe cial Appeals to a Full Bench because it felt that the decision of another Divi sion Bench in Gopal Narain v. Kanchan Lal. (AIR 1971 All 556) required reconsi deration.

(2.) BHAGMAL . the respondent, was the original hereditary tenant of the holding in suit. The Zamindars obtain ed a decree for the eiectment of Bhag mal under Section 171. U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, on February 7, 1942. In ex ecution possession was delivered to the zamindars on 29th May. 1942. A couple of months later, in July, 1942, the zamindars inducted the appellants, Soran Singh and others as hereditary tenants over the holding in dispute. Some dis putes having arisen between Bhagmal and the appellants, the appellants in 1946 filed a suit under Section 59, U. P. Tenancy Act. for a declaration that they were the hereditary tenants of the holding. The trial court dismissed the suit, but on appeal it was decreed and it was declared that the appellants were the hereditary tenants. The Board of Revenue upheld the appellate decree 24th December. 1951.

(3.) AFTER the expiry of the three years period for which the appellants were entitled to remain in possession as sub-tenants, Bhagmal on September 20, 1956. filed a suit for ejectment of the appellants under Section 202 of the Zamandari Abolition Act. The suit was decreed on 13th November. 1961. The appellants' appeal as well as their se cond appeal were also dismissed. The appellants then filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed by a learned single Judge on March 2, 1971. Against this judgment the appellants filed special appeal No. 311 of 1971.