RAMCHARAN Vs. BALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) In original suit no. 610 of 2005 plaint case in brief was that plaintiff's ancestors have been bhumidhar of disputed agricultural property, but their names were fraudulently deleted from this land in revenue records and names of defendants' third set (defendants no. 5, 6 and 7) were recorded over this property. After completion of consolidation proceedings, name of defendants' third set continued as bhumidhar in revenue records and they are unauthorizedly trying to interfere in possession of plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff had filed suit for declaration of his bhumidhari rights under Sec. 229-B of UPZA and LR Act in revenue court which was dismissed, and its appeal is pending. On the basis of these facts, plaintiff had sought relief of permanent injunction.

(3.) In written-statement, plaint averments were denied and, inter alia, it was pleaded that suit is barred by Sec. 331 of UPZA and LR Act. The trial court had framed several issues on the basis of pleadings, in which issue no.-5 was to the effect as to whether the suit is barred by provisions of Sec. 331 of UPZA and LR Act.