SIA RAM Vs. JAGAT NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the execution proceedings in Execution Case No. 48 of 1955 and the decree in Suit No. 26 of 1961 were void and inoperative against the plaintiff and that the defendant was not entitled to get possession in pursuance of the aforesaid decree. An injunction was also sought restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of plaintiff over the property in suit. The suit has been dismissed by both the courts below and the plaintiff has come up in the second appeal. The dispute has been confined to plots Nos. 359/A and 435/B alone before this Court.

(2.) According to the plaintiff he was a sirdar of the aforesaid plots. The defendant obtained a money decree against the plaintiff. The decree was put into execution by sale of agricultural holding of the plaintiff in Execution Case No. 48 of 1955. The disputed plots thereafter were auctioned by the court, The plaintiff did not raise any objection in the execution proceedings and subsequently occupied the plots forcibly. Thereupon the defendant respondent filed Suit No. 26 of 1961 against the plaintiff for his ejectment claiming that he was Bhumidhar of the disputed plots, by virtue of the execution sale. The suit was also contested and the appeal against the judgment arid decree failed holding that the defendant-respondent was the Bhumidhar of the disputed plots.

(3.) In the instant case two points have been raised by the learned counsel tor the appellant. His first contention was that the disputed plots being sirdari plots could not have been sold in execution of the decree in view of Sec. 153 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The relevant portion of the section, as it stood at that time, reads as under:-