DURGA PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. JAGTAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five appeals arise out of five suits filed by the Plaintiffs -Appellants in the revenue court against different Defendants Under Section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The suits and the first appeals preferred against the decrees passed therein by the trial court were disposed of by a common judgment and these second appeals will likewise be disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that the plots in dispute belonged to one Gopal Singh and after his death they devolved upon his widow Ramuni Kumari. She sold the plots along with some other property to one Bhola Singh in 1898. The Appellants filed suit No. 10 of 1951 in the court of the Civil Judge Varanasi against Gopal Prasad and others, who were successors -in -interest of the original vendee, for cancellation of the sale deed of 1898 and for recovery of possession over the property covered by it. The suit was compromised and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed on 10 -1 -1956. It was alleged by the Appellants that in execution of the decree obtained by them they took delivery of possession through court on 29 -7 -1957. On 15 -8 -1957, according to the Appellants the Defendants took wrongful possession of the plots respectively involved in the suits against them and they also got their names entered in the village records. The Appellants, therefore, prayed that a decree for ejectment be passed against the Defendants.

(3.) ONE of the issues framed in the suits by the revenue court was: 'Whether the Plaintiffs are Bhumidhars of the land in suit and are entitled to sue?' This issue was remitted for decision to the Civil Court and the learned Munsif who decided the issue recorded a finding that the Appellants were Bhumidhars of all the suit plots except plot No. 836/1 'subject to Defendants acquiring sirdari rights'. Evidently, what the learned Munsif meant was that the Appellants would be Bhumidhars of those plots if the Defendants are not found to have acquired Sirdari rights and this finding was recorded by him presumably because a finding with respect to Sirdari rights claimed by the Defendants could only be given by the revenue court. On receipt of this finding the revenue court proceeded to hear and decide the suits and ultimately dismissed them, holding that the Defendants have become Sirdars and that the suits were also barred by time. On appeal the learned District Judge upheld the findings of both the civil and the revenue courts and maintained the decrees passed in the suits. The Plaintiffs -Appellants have now come up in appeal to this Court.