ASHA RAM Vs. JOTI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 26 -5 -78 and the order dated 16 -5 -66 passed by the Additional Commissioner passed in a suit under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act », dismissing the Second Appeal of the Petitioner, who was Defendant in the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for declaration of co -sirdari and co -bhumidhari rights along with the Petitioner, Defendant No. 1. The facts in brief are that the Plaintiff Respondents had claimed co -tenancy rights alleging that the land in dispute was joint ancestral property of undivided Hindu family and the Plaintiffs were minor at the time of death of their father and their uncle Asha Ram, Defendant No. 1 alone was recorded during their minority and Asha Ram, their uncle was managing the whole affair and he used to divide the produce of agriculture and it was never known to the Plaintiffs that only Asha Ram, Petitioner alone was recorded and their possession continued to be peaceful along with the possession of the Petitioner and even during the consolidation operation the name of Asha Ram, the Petitioner continued, but later on there arose a dispute and the Petitioner denied their claims. Hence there arose necessity to file the present suit.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the Petitioner alleging that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and that he was the sole tenure holder and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were not the co -Defendants and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) SRI P.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the suit of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as during the consolidation operation only the name of Asha Ram, the Petitioner was entered and his name cannot be deemed to be entered in representative capacity during consolidation operation and in case Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have any claim, they should have preferred objections during consolidation operation for declaration of their co -tenancy rights, but as they failed to do so hence their claim was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.