JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. SHYAMLAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Second Appeal No. 27 of 97 -98/Saharanpur (Jagdish Prasad v. Shyam Lal and others) has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 2.6.98 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur. Another Second Appeal No. 25 of 97 -98 (Sanjeev Kumar v. Jagdish Prasad and others) has also been preferred against the same order. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed suit No. 28 under Section 229B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the Sub -Divisional Officer Muzaffarnagar. Another suit No. 30 was also filed by the plaintiff Jagdish Prasad before the Sub -Divisional Officer Muzaffarnagar. Defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and alleged that plaintiff has no share in the land in dispute because his name is not recorded therefore he cannot claim to be co -tenure holder and he cannot get share in the land in suit. During the pendency of the suit a compromise application dated 9.4.97 was filed in both the suits before the trial Court. In one suit, in which Jagdish Prasad was plaintiff, he was ready not to press the suit provided he gets share in another suit. The learned trial Court accepted the compromise in suit No. 30 in which Jagdish Prasad was ready not to press. Hence plaintiff's name is not recorded and the compromise relates to evading the payment of stamp duty. The conclusion of the trial Court was that the transfer is collusive. Aggrieved by this order Appeal Nos. 17 and 18 were preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur, without giving any consideration the application of the compromise, the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal of Jagdish Prasad. Hence one second appeal before the Board has been filed by Jagdish Prasad. Other second appeal has been filed by Sanjeev Kumar and others.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.