HARDAM SINGH Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 21.02.1997, dismissing appellant 's writ petition, whereby the appellant had challenged the order of the Board of Revenue Annexure 9 in the writ petition, being dt. 19.10.1993.

(2.) THE brief facts, necessary for the present controversy are, that two suits were filed, one by Bagdawat, the private respondent No. 5, being Suit No. 240/1980, for declaration of his khatedari rights, on the basis of adverse possession, and the other being Suit No. 48/1981, was filed by the petitioner appellant, against Bagdawat, for recovery of possession, on the basis of his having got a sale deed registered, consequent upon a decree for specific performance, in his favour, on 05.11.1980, and thereby claiming title over the land. It may be noticed, that the land in question originally belonged to one Manak, who had entered into an agreement to sale, in favour of Bagdawat on 31.03.1967, and he had also entered into agreement in favour of the petitioner on 15.11.1967, and it was the petitioner, who could get the decree of specific performance of his agreement.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment found, that two different suits can be consolidated, and disposed of by the trial Court by common order, but if a party is aggrieved, then it is necessary that it should file two appeals. Thus, it was found that the Board of Revenue did not commit any error in accepting the revision petition (sic. Second appeal) on the count that Hardam Singh had (sic. should have filed) filed two appeals, and therefore, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was in clear error in accepting only one appeal. With this, the learned Single Judge, after negativing the contention, seeking to challenge the order of consolidation, also proceeded to embark on the merits also, and purported to concur with the conclusions arrived at by the Board of Revenue.