STATE OF U P Vs. RAM SRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of U. P. against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Etawah, dismissing the suit. The suit filed initially by the State of U. P. and Gaon Sabha, Mauza Vedpura (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2) on 6-1-1959 for the reliefs of declaration that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were the owners in possession of the plots situated in Mauza Vedpura, Pargana and district Etawah, and permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiffs, in the alternative, also claimed that if they were not found in possession over the plots in dispute, including the trees standing thereon, they might be given possession over the same excluding buildings. The suit was filed with regard to the following plots mentioned in the Chart given below. The said Chart would indicate the area of these plots separately as well as their character, as mentioned in the plaint. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_133_TLALL0_1975html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE plaintiffs alleged that prior to the passing of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act I of 1951) (hereainafter referred to as 'the Act'), Smt. Ram Shri, briefly stated as the defendant, was the zamindar of the aforesaid Mauza, but on the abolition of zamindari her rights, title and interest in the said zamindari of village Vedpura, including the plots mentioned above, ceased to exist and were extinguished. The rights of the defendant vested in the State of U. P. that is, the plaintiff No. 1, which became the owner in possession of the zamindari since 1-7-1952. It was asserted that the defendant was neither the owner of the aforesaid Banjar, Usar, Rasta and Abadi plots nor had she any right to hold any Mela or Bazar over those plots. After the Zamindari was abolished, the State of U. P. issued a notification under Section 117 of the Act. As a result of this notification, the aforesaid Banjar, Usar, Rasta and Abadi plots, and the trees standing on them, got vested in the plaintiff No. 2, which was coming in possession over the same. On these allegations the plaintiffs alleged that although the defendant had no right or interest in the plots in dispute yet she had been trying to interfere in holding the Bazar, which gave rise to two proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P. C. In those proceedings the Sub-divisional Magistrate found on 30-9-1957 that the plots were in possession of the defendant, and that she would continue to remain in possession over the same until she was evicted therefrom in due course of law. It was alleged in paragraph 18 of the plaint that although as a result of the notification published in the gazette under Section 117 of the Act the plots in dispute and the trees standing thereon were vested in the plaintiff No. 2, which was entitled to get the relief for declaration and possession about the plots in question yet in order to avoid future controversy concerning the vesting of Bazar plots, trees and abadi plots in plaintiff No. 2, it was necessary that plaintiff No. 1 was also added as a plaintiff in the suit and also claimed the reliefs as prayed. It was specifically mentioned in the plaint that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 would have no objection at all if the reliefs claimed in the suit were given to plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 or to either of them. This necessitated the filing of the present suit by plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant on a number of grounds, including that the plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the plots in dispute, nor had they any title or interest of any kind in the plots and the cattle market. The defendant asserted that none of the plots was Banjar, Usar, Rasta etc. and, therefore there was no question of those plots being vested in the State of U. P. According to the case of the defendant, the plots were Abadi plots over which constructions belonging to her stood and, therefore, by virtue of those constructions those plots should be deemed to have been settled with her under Section 9 of the Act. The land which was lying vacant was claimed to be appurtenant to those constructions and, therefore, she asserted that she was entitled to continue in possession of the appurtenant land as well under the aforesaid section. She claimed that the trees standing on the aforesaid plots belonged to her. Initially, she also asserted that there was some grove standing on the land, but subsequently that plea was given up and, therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the same.