SHARDA PRASAD TIWARI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought to quash the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 26.3.1990 in appeal and the order of the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1, dated 29.7.1997, affirming the said order in revision.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Late Paramhans, husband of respondent No. 6 was recorded as tenure-holder over the land in dispute. The petitioners filed suit under Section 229B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act on 17.3.1988 against Paramhans for declaration of their rights on the allegations that Paramhans was bhumidhar of the disputed land. He was issueless and surrendered his possession in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff-petitioners remained in possession and they acquired bhumidhari rights. On 15.6.1988 Paramhans executed sale deed in favour of respondent Noa. 7 to 10. The petitioners alleged that Paramhans filed Iabaldawa (Admission) in the suit on 19.8.1988 admitting the claim of the plaintiffs. The District Authorities organised a Lok Adalat. The file of the case was sent to be decided in Lok Adalat on 11.12.1988. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Khajni, district Gorakhpur, respondent No. 3 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-petitioners on the basis of the said Iqbaldawa. Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 filed appeal against the said order of respondent No. 3 before the Additional Commissioner, respondent No. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, Paramhans filed an affidavit stating that he had not filed any Iqbaldawa as alleged by the petitioners. Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 also moved an application before the trial court on 11.10.1989 to set aside the order dated 11.12.1988, and also filed an application for their impleadment on the allegation that before the order was passed, they had purchased the disputed properly from Paramhans. Respondent No. 2 allowed the appeal remanding the matter to the trial court to decide the matter regarding the compromise afresh. The Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1, has affirmed the said order in revision flled by the petitioners.

(3.) Shri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent Nos. 7 to 10 were not parties to the suit and they had no right to challenge the order by filing appeal against the order of the trial court. The contention of the contesting respondents was that they had purchased the property on 15th June, 1988 from Paramhans. The alleged Iqbaldawa dated 19.8.1988 was flled subsequent to the execution of the sale deed by Paramhans. The rights of the purchasers could not be affected by making admission by the vendor in a suit flled against him. The decree passed in a suit is binding upon the purchaser under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act but it is always open to the purchaser of the property to show that the order has been obtained either by practising fraud or by collusion between the parties to the suit affecting the rights of the purchaser.