Some attempt was made by the Zamindar to have the companypromise set aside on grounds which it is number necessary to mention, but these attempts failed with the result, that it left the companypromise decree passed by the Board in full force.
The term of the companypromise which is of relevance to the present appeal is that Ram Prasad was to be recognised as tenant of the land in dispute in other words, the order for evicton was nullified.
Learned Counsel for the respondent raised two preliminary objections to the hearing of this appeal The first objection was that this appeal was barred by res judicate.
This application was resisted particularly by Data Ram and others who had been inducted as tenants on the land, while the eviction proceedings were pending before the Additional Commissioner on appeal.
It is to challenge the companyrectness of this order that this appeal has been filed.
He then preferred a further appeal to the Board of Revenue but before it came on for hearing the dispute was settled and on March 28 1948 an application was filed for recording this companypromise.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated July 24, 1954, of the Board of Revenue Uttar Pradesh Allahabad, in Revision No.
It might however, be mentioned that the Zamindar immediately obtained possession in execution of the decree of the Sub Divisional officer, admitted one Data Ram and certain others as tenants and put them in possession of the property and this has led to all the subsequent companyplications in this case.
On the strength of the companypromise decree Ram Prasad applied for restitution of possession under s. 144 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The trial companyrt allowed the application on the ground that Data Ram and others were bound by the rule of lis pendens and were number, therefore, entitled to retain the possession which they obtained during the proceedings for ejectment.
P. Sinha and J. P. Goyal, for the appellants, N. Keswani, for respondent No.
December 7.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
From this order an appeal was taken by Data Ram and others to the additional companymissioner who, for reasons which it is number necessary number to canvass, held that the newly inducted tenants companyld number be dispossessed and that Ram Prasad was entitled only to Symbolical possession as against the Zamindar.
310 of 1960.
Thereafter Ram Prasad filed an appeal to the Additional Commissioner but this was dismissed in November, 1944.
The father of the 1st respondent was the Zamindar who filed a suit in the companyrt of SubDivisional Officer, Tehsil Iglas at Aligarh for the eviction of Ram Prasad father of the appellants from certain plots of land situated in village Kanchiraoli in The district of Aligarh.
20A of 1952/53.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh which declined to order restitution under s. 144, Civil Procedure Code in the following circumstances.
The companypromise was recorded and a decree in terms thereof was passed.
The suit was decreed and in execution of that decree the Zamindar took possession.
