The basis of judgments passed by the SOC DDC was the preliminary decree passed on 17.9.80 in the suit for partition filed by the respondents.
This suit while pending in the Board of Revenue was abated on account of Notification dt.
a preliminary decree and a final decree are passed, has to be distinguished from an ordinary suit in which only one decree is passed and since in the instant cases, a preliminary decree for partition had already been passed, the numberification issued under Section 4 read with Sec.
Proceedings for preparation of final decree were then initiated in the Court of the Judicial officer who passed the final decree for partition but Chanderbali and others challenged the final decree in appeal during the pendency of which the village was numberified for companysolidation operations and companysequently the Additional Commissioner abated the appeal as also the suit by his order dated 1st August, 1967, Which is quoted below The village in suit is under companysolidation of holdings operation.
Similar question is involved in Civil Appeal No, 2635 of 1980 in which it was found by the Deputy Director that Raj Naraian as also other sons of Mala Prasad, had filed a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for short, ZA LR Act for partition of their 2/3rd share in the holding which was decreed and the appeals which were filed against the preliminary decree by Chanderbali and others were dismissed.
In Civil Appeal No.
The Writ Petition filed in the Allahabad High Court was also dismissed.
2635 of 1980 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Since in these two appeals, companymon question of law relating to the abatement of suit or proceedings under Section 5 2 of the P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for short Act is involved, both the appeals which were heard together, are being disposed of by this judgment.
SCR 763 with Civil Appeal No.
139 and 240 situate in Village Rampur, Paragana and Teshsil Hapur, District Meerut, were recorded in the basic year, in the name of the appellants against whom respondents 3 to 6 filed objections claiming companytenancy but the appellants companytested their claim and pleaded that they, namely, the appellants were exclusive tenure holders of the aforesaid plots in which respondents 3 to 6 had numbershare.
The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 23rd January, 1973, dismissed the objections with the finding that respondents had numbershare in the plots but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for short, SOC in appeal, allowed the claim of the respondents by judgment and order dated 12th July, 1973 which was also upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for short, DDC by his judgment and order dated 17th September, 1973.
1995 2 Suppl.
10214 of 1983, Plots No.
