The suit for permanent injunction was dismissed.
In support of his claim respondent relied on the entries in the revenue records and the re ceipts for payment of rent.
Defendants Nos.
The respondent based his title on three grounds, namely, that his father Munni Lal was recorded occupant in Khasra 1356 Fasli be ginning from 1.7.1948 and ending with 30.6.1949 and became adhivas under section 20 b i of the Zamindari Abolition Act 2 that his father Munni Lal was in cultivatory possession of the disputed land it Khasra 1359 Fasli beginning from 1.7.1951 and ending with 30.6.1952 and companysequently he became adhivasi under section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms Supplementary Act, U.P. Act No.
The respondent claimed possession under his father as sub tenant and thereafter as sirdar.
They denied the plaintiffs claim and disputed that the plaintiffs father, Munni Lal, was the sub tenant or that he acquired adhivasi rights or sirdari rights.
Against the judgment of the trial companyrt, the plaintiff respondent preferred Appeal No.
31 of 1952 and 3 that his father Munni Lal was sub tenant over the disputed land and, there fore, he became an adhivasi and companysequently the sirdar under the provisions of the zamindari Abolition Act.
The trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt also found that numbercontract or sub tenancy between Munni Lal and the proforma defendants was proved.
321 of 1969 which was dis missed by the first appellate companyrt.
The Second Appeal No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.1981 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. No.
Both the companyrts further observed that the plaintiffs father was number a recorded occupant within the meaning of section 20 b i of the Zamindari Abolition Act, as the entry of his name in companyumn 6 of the Khasra 1356 Fasli was suspicious, number being supported by Khatauni entry.
It was further pleaded that the plaintiff or his father was never in possession of the plots in suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
They had started interfering with the plaintiffs possession and, hence, the plaintiff respondent filed the suit for permanent injunction.
The trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt recorded finding of facts to the effect that the plaintiffs father Munni Lal was number in cultivatory possession of 1359 Fasli and there fore he companyld number get adhivasi right under section 3 of the P. Land Reforms Supplementary Act, 1952.
It was further held that as his father died in 1951 before the date of vesting i.e. 1.7.1952 when the zamindari was abolished in U.P. under the provi sions of Zamindari Abolition Act , the plaintiff is number entitled to the benefit of becoming adhivasi under section 20 b i of the Zamindari Abolition Act.
His rights as sub tenant devolved on the appellant who companytinued in possession as such and became adhivasi and rights of defendants 3 to 14 were extinguished under the Zamindari Abolition Act and defendants companyld number interfere with appel lants possession.
R. Lalit and R.D. Upadhyaya for the Respondents.
1874 of 1970, filed before the High Court of Allahabad against the judgment of the first appellate companyrt, was allowed on 28 9 1981.
3154 of 1982.
1 and 2 obtained fictitious sale deed from defendants Nos.
Satish Chandra, S.N. Singh, T.N. Singh, H.L. Srivastava and Sudama Ojha for the Appellants.
1 to 3, 5 to 7, 13 and 14 companytested the suit.
3 to 25 in respect of the plots in suit.
1874 of 1970.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28 9 1981 of the High Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal No.
The plaintiff respondent filed the suit alleging inter alia that before enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as Zamindari Abolition Act, defendants Nos.
3 to 25 were the tenants in chief of the plots in suit and his father Munni Lal was their sub tenant that Munni Lal died in 1951 leav ing behind four sons including the plaintiff respondent that remaining three brothers of the plaintiff had separated and companysequently the plaintiff became sole tenant that Munni Lal was recorded occupant in Khasra 1356 Fasli and in cultivatory possession in Khasra 1359 Fasli and companysequen tially he acquired adhivasi rights and then sirdari rights, the rights of defendants 3 to 25 extinguished under section 240 A of the Zamindari Abolition Act that in 1968, however, defendants Nos.
1874 of 1970.
The effect of these documents had been wholly ignored by the lower companyrts on the assump tion that these were fabricated.
The U.P. Zamindari Aboli tion Act came into force on July 1, 1952.
