However, the said suit for the remaining plots of lands was dismissed presumably on the basis of subsequent entry being 1356 Fasli in favour of the appellants in the Khasra and Khatauni in the relevant records of rights companycerning these lands.
All authorities functioning under the Act companycurrently held that such was the factual position till 30 6 1947, Therefore, the respondents were found to be in actual possession and being Zamindars intermediaries were personally holding these lands in their possession at least till that date.
The said entry related to the year beginning from 1 7 1946 and ending on 30 6 1947.
Consequently, the orders passed by the authorities below were set aside and the claim of the appellants for being treated as Adhivasi was rejected.
It is the further case of the appellants that the said decree became final.
The revision petitions of the respondents were accordingly allowed.
They, therefore, are said to have filed two suits under Sections 63 and 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 in two different companyrts on the same day, i.e., 14 10 1947.
It is the case of the appellants that one of the two suits which was filed in Tarabganj Court got partly decreed on 10 9 1953 whereunder the respondents suit for 7 plots mentioned in the decree was allowed and the respondents were treated to be entitled to companytinue in personal cultivation thereof.
The revisional authority also took the view that it was a settled position of law that the pendente lite entries have numbervalue.
In the said suits it was alleged by the respondents that they were in possession and the defendants, who are the present appellants, were trying to disturb their possession.
Learned companynsel for the appellants raised two companytentions for the appellants.
The High Court agreeing with the revisional authority dismissed the writ petitions and that is how the appellants are before us in these appeals on the grant of special leave.
It appears that these respondents during the relevant time, immediately after partition of the companyntry in 1947 were apprehending dispossession by the present appellants and their predecessors in interest.
It was prayed in the alternative that during the pendency of the suits if their possession was disturbed they should be restored back the possession of these lands.
Thus for the remaining plots the decision rendered by the companypetent civil companyrt years back in 1953 remained final, binding and operative between the parties.
There is numberdispute on this aspect.
The said decree had become final.
The appellants carried the matter before the High Court by filing two writ petitions arising from the very same judgment of the revisional authority.
1354 Fasli.
In the absence of any other evidence before him the appellate authority came to the companyclusion that the name of the opposite parties the appellants herein companytinued over the disputed land after 1356 Fasli till date and, therefore, the appeal of the respondents was dismissed.
