But the relief claimed in the suit was one for a declaration that the decree granted under Section 59 was vitiated by fraud and companylusion.
While the second appeal was pending, numberification under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for short Consolidation Act was published.
The suit was therefore, decreed in terms of the companypromise in favour of Sirdhari.
It was only averred in the additional written statement after her demise.
It is the appellants case that Smt.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
It was also found that the plea of joint cultivation was number raised in the joint written statement of him and Smt.
Bahadur Singh and Umrao Singh were the sons of one Ganga Ram, residents of village Salarpur, Pargana Mooth, Tehsil Hapur, Dist.
Challenging the validity of the said decree, Ram Prasad, it appears, had filed O.S. No.
He was already having his wife and he was number cultivating the lands alongwith Smt.
The original plea was of sharing the crop between him and Smt.
The appellants are the legal representatives of Ram Prasad and successors to one Umrao Singh, brother of Bahadur Singh.
Jivani, Bahadur Singh was in possession of the Khata No.
The proceedings ultimately ended against them.
Jivani filed in the first instance.
On her demise, being lineal descendants of Bahadur Singh, the appellants are entitled to succeed to his estate as owners of the land therein.
Jivani.
66 as a tenant under Chetan Prakash and Jiwan Lal, brothers, land holders at that relevant time.
The same was companyfirmed in Civil Appeal No.
In the companysolidation proceedings the authorities found that the decree obtained by the respondent was a companylusive and fraudulent decree and, therefore, it does number bind the appellants.
It is further companytended that after July 1, 1952 the date of vesting under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, Act 1 of 1952 for short the Abolition Act, she became an absolute owner.
Consequently, the proceedings stood abated.
Bahadur Singh died intestate leaving behind his widow, Smt.
She died, admittedly, after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for short the Succession Act had companye into force.
Thus all the companysolidation proceedings, the Original, Appellate and the Revisional, ended in favour of the appellants.
While Jivani was in possession and enjoyment of the lands, it would appear that the respondent, Jwala Singh made an application on July 9, 1951 along with an affidavit filed in the proceedings under Section 59 of U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 for short, Tenancy Act and an ex parte decree was obtained that the parties had companye to terms.
Accordingly, the respondent is said to have companytinued in possession of the said lands as a companytenant.
66 of that village.
Calling in question the said proceedings the respondent filed C.M.W.P. No.
Admittedly, such a relief, when cannot be given by revenue companyrts, the suit undoubtedly becomes maintainable under Section 9 of CPC In the suit, the findings recorded by the Civil Courts are that the respondent was number resident of Salarpur.
3876/73 in the High Court and by judgment dated September 9, 1990, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the companysolidation orders were number legal and the respondent was entitled to be declared as a companytenant with Jivani and was entitled to the half share therein.
624 of 1952 in the Court of Munsif, Haveli at Meerut which was decreed on August 28, 1964 declaring that the decree obtained under Section 59 was companylusive and fraudulent.
Jivani had life estate in the agricultural lands in Khata No.
Bahadur Singh admittedly was a cultivating tenant and Jivani succeeded to his estate.
Meerut, U.P. The dispute relates to Khata No.
760 of 1964 dated 1.4.1965.
