RAM SARAN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above noted three petitions arise out of the Suit No. 87 of 1975 filed under Section 229B/209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for short 'the Act' by Smt. Rama Devi, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 38131 of 1995, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. In all these cases, subject matter of dispute is the same, as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, they were, therefore, connected, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the aforesaid petitions are that Smt. Rama Devi filed Suit No. 87 of 1975 under Section 229B/209 of the Act for declaration and ejectment against Smt. Gomti Devi, widow of Murari Singh, and others pleading that she was bhumidhar and in possession of the land in dispute, that originally Ram Lal son of Jhandu Singh, brother of her husband, was a tenant of the same. He executed a Will in her favour on 8.7.1965, which was registered on 15.7.1965. It was on 14.9.1966 that Ram Lal disappeared from the village and remained untraceable (lapta). One Ram Charan also lodged a first information report at the police station on 7.10.1976 regarding the disappearance of Ram Lal. Since the aforesaid date more than 7 years have elapsed, therefore, Ram Lal shall be deemed to have died civil death on 14.9.1973, hence the plaintiff on the basis of the aforesaid Will became bhumidhar of the land in dispute. It was on 1.1.1973 that Smt. Gomti Devi, defendant No. 1, applied for mutation claiming that she was the sister of deceased Ram Lal. Smt. Rama Devi, plaintiff, also filed an application for mutation of her name over the land in dispute in the revenue papers on the basis of the aforesaid Will. To the said application Smt. Gomti Devi filed objection. The mutation proceedings were summary in nature and in the same title of the parties to the land in dispute could not be decided. On the other hand, one Raghuvansh, father of Yatindra and others, was asserting his possession over the land in dispute. It has been stated that mutation application was also filed by Smt. Rama Devi before Tehsildar, Dhampur after serving notice upon the defendant Nos. 3 and 4, but the same was not decided, hence the suit for aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as eight issues, which are quoted below :