63, 61, 60 and 62 against similar defendents respectively.
In December 1954, a statement of plots and tenure holders was prepared and in May 1955 a statement of proposals under s.19 was prepared in August 1955 final statements in chak form 25 were issued.
P. sinha, J. P. Goyal and Sadhu Singh, for the appellants.
51 against one Banwari.
They were dismissed as barred by res judicata on May 7, 1954.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 7, 1954 of the U.P. Board of Revenue, in Second Appeals Nos.
It appeals that the villages in which the lands in suit were situate, companye under Consolidation Operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holding.s Act, 1953 U. P. V of 1954 , hereinafter called the Act, sometime in July 1954, when a declaration was issued by the State Government under s.4 of the Act to the effect that it had been decided to make a Scheme of companysolidation for that area.
1 to 5, Supreme Court Rules in November 1959, and also included in their statement of case a narration of those events and their effect.
Mukhtiar Singhs suits against those defendants, respectively.
The allegations of the plaintiffs in each suit and the companytentions of the defendent in each suit were similar and therefore similar issues were framed in each suit and all the suits were tried together and were disposed of by one companymon judgment.
The Additional Commissioner dismissed three appeals for default, These were the appeals which were filed against Hoshiar Singh, Karam Singh and Mukhtiar Singh by Banwari.
Khub Chand had three sons Karan Singh, Hoshiar Singh and Mukhtiar Singh.
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The Additional Commissioner heard the remainmg nine appeals on merits and dismissed them.
Each of these suits was for different sets of plots.
67 to 75 of 1959.
Special leave was granted on April 18, 1955.
The defendants judgment debtors then filed nine second appeals before the Board of Revenue.
Bishan Narain and E. L. Mehta, for the respondents.
53 to 61 of 1945 46.
The applications for special leave were filed in this Court in November 1954.
48 of 1944 under s. 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 U.P. XVII of 1939 , against one Bhartu, suit No.49 against Har Gyan, Mukhtiar Singh and Data Ram, sons of Sis Ram, brother of Bhartu, suit No.50 against Har Gyan and Mukhtiar Singh, sons of Sis Ram, and suit No.
were Nos.67, 65, 64 and 66.
February 15.
Hoshiar Singh instituted suit No.
appeals, by special leave, are against the orders of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, dismissing nine second appeals filed by the appellants in circumstances hereinafter, mentioned, on the ground that the orders of the First Appellate Court in three other companynected first appeals had become final and operated as res judicata.
Karam Singh similarly instituted suits Nos.
Each of these brothers instituted four suits.
By the time the appeals came up for hearing, some other events took place and as a result of them the respondents filed an application for adducing additional evidence under O.XLV, rr.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. These nine.
Twelve decrees were, however, prepared.
Against the twelve decrees the defendants judgment debtors in each decree filed twelve first appeals in the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division.
