BABU LAL Vs. RAM AUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant/appellants have filed this second appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.8.1984, passed by Civil Judge, Unnao, in Civil Appeal No. 96/1982, whereby the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 5.5.1982 passed in Regular Suit No. 128 of 1979. Consequently the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent for permanent injunction and cancellation of order dated 12.3.1966 was decreed and the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was declared as null and void.

(2.) THE plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit with the allegations that the land Gata No. 72 and 73 situate at village Topra, Pagana Mauranwa, Tehsil Purwa, District Unnao was owned by the father of the plaintiff/ respondent, namely, Herai. After the death of his father, the plaintiff/ respondent inherited the aforesaid property and became absolute owner thereof. It was further pleaded that after the death of his father, the mother of the plaitniff/ respondent started living with Rajau who was defendant no.3 in the suit and out of the said wed -lock, defendants no.1 and 2, namely, Ram Asrey and Sunder were born. Since the plaintiff/ respondent was of tender age and was also not mentally sound, the agriculture was being looked after by Rajau. When the consolidation proceedings started in the village, the defendant no. 3 Rajau got his name and the name of his sons Ram Asrey and Sunder, mutated in the revenue record. The plaintiff/ respond net when came to know about the aforesaid entry, he enquired and on enquiry it was revealed that on the basis of some compromise, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has passed an order for entering the names of defendants no. 1 and 2 in the revenue record. The plaintiff/ respondent challenged the compromise dated 12.3.1966 on the ground that he did not ever enter into any compromise and the said compromise was obtained by playing fraud upon him.

(3.) THE defendant/ appellants, namely, Babu Lal, Lallu and Ram Asrey who were subsequent purchasers, contested the suit by filing written statement and they stated that the compromise was arrived at between the parties before the Consolidation Court in the presence of the father of the defendant no.1 and 2 and other witnesses against which no objection was filed by any one. It was further stated that the plaintiff/ respondent had also moved an application for succession, which was dismissed and as such it cannot be said that the plaintiff/ respondent had no knowledge of the compromise earlier. Thus the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondent was barred by limitation. It was further pleaded that on the basis of compromise, the defendant/appellants are in possession and after the publication under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the suit was not maintainable.