CHUNNI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Singh, for respondent -5.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the judgment and decree of Assistant Collector (First Class) dated 28.08.1992, decreeing the suit filed by Ram Pyare (now represented by respondents -5 and 6), Additional Commissioner dated 06.09.2013 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 29.05.2014, dismissing the appeal and second appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid decree, arising out of proceeding under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(3.) RAM Pyare (now represented by respondents -5 and 6) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 108/224/94) under Section 229 -B of the Act, on 04.09.1973 for declaring him as co -tenure holder of the land mentioned in Schedule -A [consisting plots 228 (area 0.32 acre), 230 (area 0.02 acre), 231/1 (area 0.16 acre), 231/2 (area 0.35 acre) and 232 (area 0.28 acre)] and sole tenure holder of the land mentioned in Schedule -B [consisting plots 237 (area 0.36 acre) and 238 (area 0.33 acre)] of village Mahadev Jharkhandi, Tukra No. 1, pargana Haveli, district Gorakhpur of the plaint. It has been stated in the plaint that the land of Schedule -A was jointly acquired by Algoo (father of Jeut, defendant -1 and father -in -law of Smt. Jagia widow of Motiraj, defendant -2) and Bhaggu (grand father of Ram Pyare), who were real brothers. Algoo was elder to Baggu as such his name was recorded in representative capacity. After death of Algoo, name of Motiraj was recorded in representative capacity. Taking advantage of revenue entry, Motiraj obtained bhumidhari certificate and executed a gift deed dated 12.06.1969 in favour of Jeut. Damdi (son of Baggu) died during life time of Baggu as such after death of Bhaggu, Ram Pyare inherited his share. Bhaggu and after his death, the plaintiff through out remained in joint possession of the land in dispute. On the basis of gift deed name of Jeut was recorded over the land in dispute. The property mentioned in Schedule -B of the plaint was property of Shiv Narain, maternal grand father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was co -sharing in cultivation with Shiv Narain and after his death he alone was in possession of the land in dispute. The defendants have no concerned with the land mentioned in Schedule -B. During minority of the plaintiff, the name of Jeut was wrongly recorded over the land in dispute, which is liable to be deleted.