MOHAN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Triveni Shanker for the respondent no. 4. The learned Standing Counsel has been heard for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. No counsel has appeared on behalf of the Nagar Palika Varanasi. Affidavits have been exchanged between the contesting parties.

(2.) This is a dispute arising out of a suit filed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 by the respondent no. 4. The claim according to the plaint was of adverse possession over the disputed holding, namely, Plot No. 457/2, area 0.25 acres. The plaint discloses a case of adverse possession and a prayer has been made for decreeing the suit as against the defendants 1, 2 and 3 who are the petitioners before this Court.

(3.) The matter proceeded and it appears that before the trial court a case was developed by the plaintiff, without there being any pleadings, that the disputed property was the holding of the grand-father of the plaintiff. This plea was obviously not taken in the plaint. The petitioners, who are the defendants, put in appearance and contested the suit on the ground that the disputed land was owned by a common ancestor and that the petitioners were in possession thereof and they also relied on certain entries in their favour. They also contended that the plaintiffs never objected to the entries nor did they dispute the pedigree as set up by the defendants. The trial court proceeded to discuss the case on the basis of succession in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and so far as the claim of adverse possession was concerned the trial court clearly commented that the entry of adverse possession through Form PA-10 was not proved. On the issue of possession while deciding Issue No. 7, a one line finding was recorded that the plaintiffs have been found to be in possession of the land and therefore the suit deserves to be decreed.