RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. THAKUR PRASAD ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMESH Chandra and others have filed this revision under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the judgment dated 1-2-2001 passed by Additional Commissioner Bareilly.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that plaintiff-opposite- party filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the trial Court. Notice was sent to the original tenure-holder Smt. Ramkali Devi. She did not appear before the Court nor filed any written statement in the suit. The learned trial Court closed the evidence of Smt. Ramkali Devi and the plaintiff completed his evidence. In the meantime the present revisionist Ramesh Chandra and others filed an application that they should be impleaded as a party to the suit on the basis of the sale-deed duly executed by the original tenure-holder Smt. Ramkali Devi. The learned trial Court allowed the application and impleaded them on the basis of the mutation order passed by Naib Tahsildar. The plaintiff-opposite-party filed a revision before the Commissioner Lucknow against the order of the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Commissioner set aside the order of impleadment passed by the trial Court and allowed the revision on the ground that the sale-deed was executed during the pendency of the suit. Hence, on the basis of such sale-deed no person can be impleaded as a party to the suit. Hence the present revision.

(3.) THE claim of the plaintiff opposite-party is on the basis of adverse possession and the argument is that the transfer was made during the pendency of the suit and such transaction will be void and no person can be impleaded as a party to the suit on the basis of such sale-deed.