LUXMI NARAIN Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Luxmi Narain and others against the judgment dated 5-2-2002 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the records of the case carefully.

(3.) CONTRARY to this, the learned Counsel for the opposite-parties vehemently opposed the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist and argued that a case regarding the land in dispute had earlier been contested between the parties and the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties. Plot No. 297/1 had been given in the share of Bholanath, Phool Chand and Ramdin and they transferred their share to Smt. Shakuntala Devi and subsequently Smt. Shakuntala Devi transferred her share to Smt. Munni Devi. After the death of Smt. Munni Devi her legal heirs are in possession. He argued that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist are contrary to the facts. He has not locus standi. He submitted that the finding given by the learned Additional Commissioner is perfect and the present revision has got no force and should be dismissed.