RAMJI LAL Vs. ALIMUDDIN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for a declaration under Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that the plaintiff was the sirdar of the land in dispute alongwith the trees standing their on. The plaintiff claimed sirdari rights by virtue of his being a hereditary tenant of the plot in dispute. It was stated that the defendants got their names wrongly entered in the papers which led to the filing of the suit. The defence was that the suit was barred by Sec. 42 of the Specific Relict Act. The defendants further set up their own possession for the last 12 year, but the written statement did not specify what rights, if any, they claimed in the land in dispute.

(2.) The trial court decreed the suit but the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff not being in possession the suit was barred by Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act. That court gave no finding on the plaintiff's right in the land in suit. It is how the plaintiff has come in appeal.

(3.) Sri S. S. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the suit having been filed under the provisions of Sec. 229-B of the Act the provisions of Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act did not apply. He has also attacked the findings of the lower appellate court on the question of possession. Sri A. Banerji, learned counsel for the respondents, has supported the judgment of the lower appellate court.