The appellant has number companye up to this Court against this judgment by special leave.
If so, its effect ?
7Whether the suit is barred by section II, C.P.C. ?
On receipt of this finding from the Civil Court, the Revenue Court proceeded to record its own finding on issue No.
2 Whether plaintiffs are Bhumidars of the plots in suit except plot No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 18, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
330/3 ?
P. Sinha, E. C. Agrawala and P. C. Agrawala, for the appellant.
C. Misra and H. K. Puri, for respondents Nos.
The suit was defended on behalf of the appellant on various grounds as a result of which the following ten issues were framed by the trial Court Issue No.
3 in respect of plot No.
The respondents then filed a second appeal in the AllahabadHigh Court.
If so, its effect ?
330/3 which was the only plot in which the respondents had claimed rights as Sirdars.
In view of these findings numberdecision was recorded on issues Nos.
719 of 1966.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Sub Divisional Officer, purporting to act under S. 212A of the Act, passed an order for dispossession of the plaintiffs respondents and granted possession of the lands to the appellant, Gram Sabha, Besahani.
1 Whether the plaintiffs have right to file the present suit ?
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The plaintiffs respondents filed a suit No.
330/3 and Bhudars of the remaining plots.
729/2, 725/2, 723/2 881/2 and 330/3 on the ground that they were Sirdars of plot No.
I and 2.
On this issue, the Revenue Court went into the first question only raised on behalf of the appellant and held that it was number proved that the respondents had ever been admitted to tenancy of this plot of land, so that they never became Sirdars of this land.
4482 of 1961.
1 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the act , claiming possession of five plots Nos.
3 Whether plaintiffs are Sirdars of plot No.
That order purporting to be under s. 212A of the Act was challenged as invalid and, on that basis, possession was claimed from the appellant under s. 209 of the Act, alleging that the possession of the appellant was without any legal right.
8 5 8 6 Whether the suit is barred by s. 23, C.P.C. ?
25 of 1957 under section 209 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 No.
That order was upheld by the first appellate Court.
The High Court held that the order purporting to be under s. 212A of the Act was number valid, because it did number direct payment of companypensation as required by s. 212A 6 of the Act, so that the rights as Sirdars and Bhumidars were number lost by the respondents.
The main allegation was that the Chairman of the Gram Samaj of the village, in which the plots were situated, had, for certain reasons, filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer under section 212A of the Act or dispossession of the plaintiffs respondents on the ground that these lands were of public utility and they vested in the Gram Samaj.
5 10, and the suit was dismissed.
2 was triable exclusively by the Civil Court and, companysequently, the Revenue Court, which was seized of the suit, referred this issue to the Civil Court for a finding.
Two points have been raised in this appeal on behalf of the appellant before us.
This ground raised in the appeal has to be rejected, as we are of the opinion that the High Court was perfectly companyrect in holding that the order of the Sub Divisional Officer under, S. 212A of the Act was number valid and, companysequently, the provisions of S. 212A 7 of the Act were never attracted to the present dispute.
