RAM SWAROOP Vs. KALICHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. S. Sinha, J. This Second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, is directed against the decree and judgment of the Ilnd Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr dated 18th September, 1979, passed in Civil Appeal No. 356 of 1978-Kali Charan and Another v. Ram Swaroop, setting aside the decree and judgment, dated 30th October, 1978 passed by the Ilnd Addl. Munsif, Bulandshahr in Original Suit No. 222 of 1973.

(2.) THE plaintiff appellant brought a suit for declaration that the defendant-respondents were "not grandsons of Diviya i. e. Sobha was not the son of Diviya" on the assertions that Diviya son of Jawahar had been married to one Smt. Budhiya and died on 10th August, 1890, leaving Sukhram as his only son: that after the death of Diviya Smt. Budhiya remarried with Nanhey and gave birth to Sobha from him in the year 1895 ; that since Sukhram was then minor the name of Siflt. Budhiya was recorded as his guardian; that Sukhram alone was the heir of Diviya, and that after the death of Sukhram the plaintiffs, being the only son, succeeded to his properties. According to the plaintiff-appellant Sobha raised dispute relat ing to properties left by Sukhram. And upon his death his sons, namely, the defendant- respondents, started asserting themselves to be co-sharers in the property to Diviya relying upon the fact that Sobha, their father, had succeeded in getting his name recorded as co-tenant in the disputed properties. THE plaintiff appellant reiterated that the defendant-respondents were not entitled to inherit the property.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the decree and judgment, the defendant respondents preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code. The appellate court has set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court on the findings that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiff-appellant in as much as the suit was cognizable by the revenue court: that the defendant-respondents were sons of Diviya, and that the proceedings of the suit were barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Hence this appeal.