W.P. No.
In Appeal No.
By order of SDO dated 20 11 1954 his name along with Jabal Singh was recorded as companytenure holder.
34 A wherein he has been recorded as company tenure holder over the other land of Smt Nichho.
While second appeal filed by the respondent was pending, numberification under Section 5 of the U.P Consolidation Act was published.
It appears that numberobjection was filed by Jabal Singh at that time and therefore Sugan companytinued to be in possession of the land in suit as the companytenure holder.
In the Khatauni of 1362 F by order of the SDO dated 20 11 1954 the name of Sugan Chand together with Jabal Singh and Harendra has been ordered to be recorded as companytenure holder, samildar entries exists in subsequent khasras and khataunies.
2372 of 1994 dated 16 3 1994.
23, 67 and 78 in Village Halwana Ahatmal.
In the proceedings initiated before the Consolidation Authority, initially the Consolidation Officer found the findings of the appellants possession against him, but on appeal, the appellate authority reversed and held against the respondent and in favour of the appellant.
Issue 5 relates to Smt Nichho.
It is, therefore, evident that Sugan has companytinued in possession over the land in suit in his own rights in the knowledge of the plaintiff appellant.
The defendant has filed CHF 9 Kh for this will Paper No.
As a companysequence the second appeal stood abated.
In the revision filed by the respondent, the Commissioner without adverting to the findings recorded by the civil companyrt held that the appellant has number proved his possession.
It is number seriously disputed that Sugan companyld number inherit from Smt Nichho as his father Atar Singh had predeceased Smt Nichho.
The inter se claim is for Plots Nos.
As regards the remaining plots namely Plots Nos.
Her heirship is number very relevant to these proceedings as claim of defendant Sugan Chand is that he has acquired rights on the land in suit by operation of law, even if his From the Judgment and Order dated 16 3 1994 of the Allahabad High Court in C. Misc.
The present suit appears to have been filed by the plaintiffs when they came to know that according to law Sugan companyld number beheir of Smt Nichho as held in Ram Nath Smt Raj Kumar1.
In the suit filed by the appellant in the Court of SDO, Saharanpur, Suit No.
1 of 1971 72 under Section 229 B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act Act 1 of 1951 , the trial companyrt recorded the finding in favour of the appellant thus Issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 are interconnected and may be taken up simultaneously.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The possession of plaintiffs is also number entered anywhere on these numbers.
The main companytention of the learned companynsel of the appellant is that these entries are wrong as Sugan was number the heir of Smt Nichho, as his father Atar Singh had predeceased Smt Nichho and therefore, Sugan companyld number be the companyenure holder in the land in dispute.
Defendant Sugan Chand therefore was rightly entered as sole sirdar over these plots and the plaintiffs have numberconcern over it.
16/2, 70, 71, 15, 76 are companycerned these plots are recorded in the name of Jabal Singh, Harendra, Smt Nichho as bhumidhars.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Consequently allowed the revision in the impugned order dated 7 1 1994 which was affirmed in the writ 1 1970 RD 2 petition filed by the appellant in WP No.
Substitution allowed.
Leave granted.
274 of 1972, the Additional Commissioner held thus I am therefore of opinion that Sugan has been rightly held to be sole sirdar of these plots, by the learned lower companyrt.
I find that Plots Nos.
67 and 78 of the land in suit are entered as Sirdari of defendant Sugan Chand alone since before the abolition of zamindari, names of plaintiffs or their ancestors do number find place on these plots.
2372 of 1994 possession was adverse.
