SUNIL KUMAR Vs. MAHANT JASVINDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are : On 16-7-1991 Himanchal Dodhiyal's, 3 persons institute a lawsuit under Sec. 299-B ZA and LR Act in the court of Assistant Collector First Class, Haridwar. The pleading has set forth that an area of khasra No, 59 area 5.849 hectares belonged to defendant No. 4 : Mahant Jasvindra Singh. The latter has executed a sale-deed of 1/2 share to Krishna Kumar, not impleaded, and the rest 1/2 share to defendant No. 5 : Ramesh Chand Nankani. In pursuance of sale possession was delivered to Krishna Kumar and Ramesh Chand Nankani. Further on 8-1-1991 defendant No. 5 Ramesh Chand Nankani executes a sale of his 1/2 share to plaintiff : Himanchal Dodhiyals. So he is bhumidhar tenant in possession of khasra No. 59 area 2.924 hectares. The grievance is that defendants No. 4 and 5 are taking undue advantage ; are unwilling for demarcation of land of the bata number. A notice under Sec. 80, C.P.C. has been seat on State of U.P. for service on Collector on 14-6-1991. The relief for a declaration as bhumidhar tenant is possession of land they pray the court for.

(2.) On 6-7-1991 defendant No. 5 Ramesh Chand Nankani files an Iqbaldawa. On 16-7-1991 defendants file a compromise acknowledging plaintiff s claim. On 18-7-1991 issues are framed. On 15-7-1991 State of U.P. through Collector joins issue with a contention that suit is not maintainable because name of plaintiff is already noted in revenue records. A significant contention is that 60 days duration has not clasped to enable the plaintiff to institute the suit as respects notice under Sec. 80, CPC.

(3.) On 27-1-1991 Krishna Kumar moves an application for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC. He says that sale by defendant No. 4 Mahant Jasvindra Singh in favour of Ramesh Chand Nankani is illegal and inoperative. On the basis of said sale Ramesh Chand Nankani has moved for mutation in Tahsildars. Not only the mutation was rejected but the sale is declared null and void. Again Ramesh Chand Nankani moves for mutation and an ex parte order procured on 18-2-1991. Against that he has moved a restoration and trial is subjudice. In this view of things, Ramesh Chand Nankani has executed a sale-deed in favour of plaintiffs. On such a basis a mutation order has been passed on 20-2-1991. It is made clear that second mutation application was not maintainable. He prays for his impleadment in the suit. An affidavit in support. On 6-8-1991 Sub-Divisional Officers order dismissing the suit on the ground that plaintiff is recorded as bhumidhar tenant along with others, Krishna Kumars impleadment is rejected. An appeal and a revision. Revision by Krishna Kumar against his non-impleadment ; appeal by Sunil Kumar against dismissal of his suit. On 24-3-1992 Additional Commissioner enters an order dismissing appeal as well as revision. Aggrieved by the order, Sunil Kumar's second appeal.