CHIRANJI SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' writ petition arising out of a suit under section 209 of the U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiffs had claimed Bhumidhari right in the disputed land and had asserted that the defendant had no concern with the disputed land and was liable to ejectment. The defendant opposite party in the present writ petition had claimed Sirdari right in the disputed land and had asserted that the plaintiffs' suit should be dismissed.

(2.) THE trial court through its judgment dated 23-9-1971 accepted the claim of the defendant and dismissed the suit. Against the judgment of the trial court the plaintiffs petitioners had preferred an appeal which was allowed and their suit was decreed. THE defendant opposite party had preferred a second appeal which was allowed by the Second Appellate Court and the plaintiffs' suit stands dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the second appellate court the plaintiffs petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) THE terms of the document have been quoted in the judgment of the first appellate court which was in favour of the plaintiff petitioners. In my opinion the trial court and the second appellate court have correctly construed the document in favour of the defendant opposite party as a lease and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it should be treated as mortgage is not acceptable to me.