CHANDRABALI YADAV Vs. NAND BAHADUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 19.8.2015 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge, EC Act, Jaunpur in Civil Revision No. 176 of 2013, whereby the revision has been allowed and the order of the trial court dated 4.9.2013 permitting impleadment of the petitioner as a party defendant in Original Suit No. 168 of 2008, has been set aside.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondents have instituted Original Suit No. 168 of 2008 against the the defendant-respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining contesting defendants no. 1 to 4 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants and their constructions existing over the suit property. The suit property has been shown with letters A, B, C, D, E, F, A in the plaint map and according to the plaintiff-respondents, its new number is 52, measuring 0.80 decimals. The plaint case is that the suit property had vested in the plaintiff-respondents under Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, The Act .

(3.) In the suit, the State of U.P. through Collector, Jaunpur, Collector Jaunpur and Gram Panchayat, Brahmanpur and one Rajmani Yadav have been arrayed as contesting defendants. The State of U.P. and the Collector, Jaunpur have filed a written statement on 22.10.2010, contending that the suit property belongs to the State Government and the Gram Panchayat and is recorded as 'Bheeta' in the revenue records. The claim of the plaintiff-respondents that the suit property had vested in them, was thus categorically denied.