389 394 of 1950.
N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, for the respondent.
The Additional Collector, Meerut, held, on evidence, that the said lands were Sir and Khud kasht of the respondent and that the appellants were number admitted thereto as hereditary tenants.
District Magistrate, Meerut, in Cases Nos.
78 to 83 of 1959.
III of 1951.
After the said order, the Revenue Court transferred the suits to the Civil Court for retrial, but the first Additional Munsif, Ghaziabad, to whom the suits were transferred, held that the said suits were triable only by the Revenue Court and retransferred the same to that Court.
On September 22, 1952, on an application made by the respondent, the Revenue Court ordered under r. 5 for restarting the trial of the suits.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated July 28, 1954, of the U. P. Board of Revenue in Second Appeals Nos.
He alleged therein that the disputed lands were his Sir lands and that the appellants trespassed on the same on the basis of a wrong order of the Criminal Court.
The present appeals were filed against the order of the Board of Revenue.
Thereafter the suits companytinued to remain stayed under r. 4 of the said Rules.
It, may also be mentioned that the rules were amended on October 8, 1952, i. e., after the order directing the restarting of the proceedings.
The Board of Revenue accepted the findings of the two Courts, and also it negatived the plea raised by the appellants for the first time to the effect that the suits were number maintainable in the Revenue Court.
As the dispute was likely to cause breach of the peace, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baghpat, took proceedings under s. 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, and attached the disputed lands on October 8, 1948, and directed them to be placed in possession of a superdgidar pending disposal of those proceedings.
On June 30, 1950, the respondent filed six suits in the Revenue Court Additional Collector, Meerut against the appellants under s. 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act U. P. 17 of 1939 , hereinafter called the Act, for evicting them from the said lands and for damages.
455 460 of 1954 against the judgment and orders dated March 16, 1954, of the Addl.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
On August 14, 1951, the six suits were stayed in view of the U. P. Government Notification dated August 9, 1951, issued under Ordinance No.
The suits were companysolidated, but were stayed on August 14, 1951, under r. 4 of the Rules made under the U. P. Ordinance No.
C. Misra, for the appellants.
The appellants preferred six appeals against the decrees of the Additional Collector in the six suits to the Court of the Commissioner at Meerut.
The respondent was a Zamindar of Gadhi, Baghu and Santokpore Villages in Uttar Pradesh.
The appellants pleaded, inter alia, that they had been admitted as hereditary tenants by the respondent after receiving from them a sum of Rs.
He claimed that the plaint schedule lands were his Sir.
After making the necessary enquiry, by an order dated March 20, 1950, he found that the appellants were in possession of the said lands and declared that they were entitled to be in possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due companyrse of law.
40,000 towards premium.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. These six appeals, by special leave were filed against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated July 28, 1954.
The appellants preferred a revision against that order to the Board of Revenue.
III of 1951.
v of r. 4 of the Rules, but the Board of Revenue rejected their companytention on the ground that the suits fell within the exception to r. 5.
In the result, the appeals were dismissed.
The appellants set up a dispute claiming that they were admitted by the respondent as hereditary tenants and that they were in possession of the said lands.
April 24.
430 435 of 1953 54, arising out of the judgment and orders dated April 28, 1954, of the Court of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, in Appeals Nos.
The appellants filed an application under subrule 3 of r. 5 for restarting the trial of the suits, and an order directing the restarting of the suits was made by the Additional Collector, Meerut, on September 22, 1 1901 L.R. 29 I.A. 24, 33.
On the merits, he agreed with the trial Court in holding that the lands in dispute were Sir and that the appellants were number hereditary tenants.
The Additional Commissioner, who heard the appeals, held that one of the appeals filed by the legal representatives of Jahana, the plaintiff in the suit which gave rise to that appeal, had number been properly presented on the ground that Shri Brahmanand Sharma, Vakil, did number file in the suit any vakalat given to him by the legal representatives of the deceased and therefore the appeal had abated, and that as all the suits were companysolidated with the companysent of the parties, the decision in the suit became final and operated as res judicata in the other appeals.
Thereafter, the appellants preferred six second appeals against the said order of the Additional Commissioner to the Board of Revenue at Allahabad.
