MANNAR AND ANOTHER Vs. SITA RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners are transferees from the tenure holder named Lokhan through a sale deed dated 12/13 -8 -1968 whereas the contesting opposite party No. 1 in the present writ petition is the transferee of the disputed land from the original tenure holder named Lokhan through a sale deed dated 13 -8 -1967. The aforesaid tenure -holder deposited ten times rent for acquisition of Bhumidhari right in the disputed land on 3 -8 -1367 and executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 1 the present writ petition but that application was dismissed. Later on the tenure holder again deposited the requisite amount on 12/13 -8 -1968 and executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners on the same date regarding the disputed land. It is noteworthy that Bhumidhari Sanad was granted to the tenure holder on 21 -7 -1959 which would confer Bhumidhari right upon the tenure holder from 12/13 -8 -1968. Due to such a circumstance the opposite party No. 1 brought a suit for declaration of his title and possession over the disputed land under Section 229B/209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The claim of the opposite party was contested by the petitioners on the ground that the sale deed in favour of the opposite party No. 1 was bad in law and did not confer any title upon the opposite party No. 1 and that the petitioners were Bhumidhar in possession over the disputed land and various other pleas were raised by the petitioners as is evident from the issues framed by the trial Court and mentioned in Annexure I attached with the writ petition.

(2.) THE trial Court through its judgment dated 26 -10 -1970 accepted the claim of the opposite party No. 1. The petitioner's appeal against the judgment of the trial Court failed as is evident from Annexure II attached with the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioners also remained unsuccessful in second appeal as is evident from Annexure III attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgments of the revenue Courts the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a number of rulings in support of his contention that if a plea had not been raised in the plaint the Courts could not entertain such a plea unless a specific issue was framed and the attention of the parties was invited. In this connection one of the cases mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners is Girja Shankar and others v. Jagannath and others : A.I.R. 1952 All. 301.