ANGREIZ SINGH Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANGREIZ Singh and others have filed this second appeal under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the judgment and decree dated 9-10-2003 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the learned trial Court. The plaint averment says that the basis of the suit was family settlement between the plaintiff- respondent and his father. The learned trial Court after framing the relevant issues and due evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division which was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) THE learned trial Court had dismissed the suit on two grounds. The suit was not competent because of non-joinder of necessary parties and plaintiff-respondent could not prove his possession as well as the right over the land in dispute. The family settlement which is the basis of his claim was not a Family settlement through a regular suit but it was an injunction order granted by Munsif not to interfere in the possession of the defendants and the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the purchasers was competent because the land was recorded in the name of his father and the father executed a sale-deed in favour of the purchasers. On these two grounds the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff but the learned Additional Commissioner Bareilly Division did not agree with the conclusion of the learned trial Court because in his view the non joinder of necessary parties is not a Ground for dismissal of the suit. In an injunction suit State and Gaon Sabha are not necessary parties whereas in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act they are necessary parties. But the file of the learned Munsif Magistrate Pilibhit in an injunction suit is not a judgment of a regular suit. The declaration for the partition of the cultivable land would be done by the Revenue Courts and not be a Civil Court. The judgment of the Civil Court will not have a binding effect in a regular Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. So this opinion of the learned Additional Commissioner is against the provisions of law and it cannot get confirmation at this stage. The injunction suit was filed not to interfere in the possession of the defendants but it was not a family settlement. Had it been a family settlement their sharess with specific gatas number and areas would have been given but in the instant case it is not like that. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the learned Additional Commissioner is not based on the legal provisions of the evidence on record.