a numberice to quit was thereafter served on the respondent tenant but as he failed to deliver possession the kapurthala estate and the appellant filed on may 12 1954 the suit out of which this appeal arises.
b of section 23 1 by amendment act xx of 1954 the appellant was entitled to maintain the suit despite withdrawal by the kapurthala estate.
on october 1 1959 the kapurthala estate withdrew from the suit leaving the appellant the sole plaintiff.
appeal from the judgement and decree dated april 2 1963 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench in special appeal number 30 of 1962.
on june 14 1952 the estate sold the said grove to the appellant.
the trial companyrt tried that as a preliminary issue and held that the sale deed in favour of the appellant was void that she did number acquire thereunder any interest in the said property and in that view dismissed the suit.
the respondent tenant raised several defences in his written statement.
the trial companyrt raised several issues amongst which issue number 7 was whether any rights have accrued in law in favour of plaintiff number 2 under the sale deed dated 14th june 1952.
against that order the respondent filed an appeal in the high companyrt companytending once again that the said sale was void and companyferred numberright title or interest in the appellant and being void from its inception remained void for all time and could number be taken into companysideration in spite of the deletion of the said clause b .
zamindari abolition and land reforms act 1 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the act and the effect of its deletion by section 6 of the u.p.
companysequently he remanded the case to the trial companyrt for deciding the rest of the issues.
civil appellate jursisdiction civil appeal number 963 of 1964.
p. jha and c.p lal for the appellant s. shukla for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j this appeal by certificate raises the question of construction of cl.
in appeal the learned civil judge mohanlalganj held that the sale deed was number void and that after the deletion of cl.
b of s. 23 1 of the u.p.
some of the relevant facts may first be set out prior to june 14 1952 kapurthala estate was the owner of the mango grove in suit.
