BHOLA SINGHS Vs. INDRA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.6.1984 passed by the Additional Commissioner whereby he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by plaintiff respondent No. 1, and the order dated 4.7.1986 passed by the Board of Revenue affirming aforesaid order in second appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that one Anant Ram was co-tenant to the extent of l/3rd share in the land in dispute. He executed registered sale deed on 9.7.1965 in favour of Indra Narain, respondent No. 1. The petitioners are co-tenants to the extent of 2/3rd share in the land in dispute. They filed suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 9.7.1965. The civil court dismissed the suit on 13.5.1970. They preferred appeal against said decree. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on 9.11.1970. The crops were standing over the land in dispute. Respondent No. 1 filed suit for damages as the petitioners had taken away the crops. The suit for damages was decreed by the trial court. The petitioners filed appeal and the appeal was dismissed. respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 112/296/123/267 of 1981-82 under Section 229B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short referred to as the Act) in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer. Allahabad. on 27.1.1971 for declaration that he is co-tenant in the land in dispute to the extent of 1/3rd share on the allegation that Anant Ram was co-tenant to the extent of 1/3rd share, and he having executed sale deed in his favour, was entitled for declaration of his right over the land in question.

(3.) The petitioners filed written statement and denied that sale deed was executed by Anant Ram. The plea was that Anant Ram was their grandfather. He left the village in the year 1961 and when he came back in the year 1962. he wanted to take possession from the defendant petitioners, but they did not permit him to take possession. There was dispute and Anant Ram had taken some money and surrendered his right. The parties led evidence before the trial court on all the issues. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was not maintainable for declaration of cotenancy right. Plaintiff respondent filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal on 27.6.1984, holding that the suit for declaration of co-tenancy right was maintainable. As the evidence was on record, he found that Anant Ram had executed sale deed and the petitioners failed to prove ouster of Anant Ram. The petitioners filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 4.7.1986. These orders have been challenged in the instant case.