In his opinion, as numberperiod of limitation is prescribed for such cases, a suit can still be filed for their ejectment.
Partapi was recorded as Khatedar, was number denied.
First, such was number the plea before the companysolidation authorities and the High Court.
Now reverting to the appeals before the Settlement Officer Consolidation , he found, inter alia, that Smt.
Though, the learned Munisff decreed the suit in respect of 13 plots in question also yet on appeal by the appellants, the learned District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court on the ground that the civil companyrt had numberjurisdiction and ordered that the plaint be returned.
This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.3820 of 1969 on December 23, 1981.
Partapi.
Partapi on October 31, 1952 and thereafter they were holding the plots adverse to the interest of respondents 3 and 4 and as numbersuit for ejectment was filed against them under Section 209 of the said Act, they perfected their rights by adverse possession.
The Deputy Director Consolidation having companysidered the judgment of the District Judge numbered that the claim of respondents 3 and 4 on the ground of being sisters sons of the last male tenure holder Bal Karan of the disputed land in respect of which Smt.
Both those sets of plots were companybined and joint entries were made in revenue records.
It is the validity of that order of the High Court that is subject matter of this civil appeal.
The alternative submission was that they had perfected their right by adverse possession.
Evidently Section 209 does number postulate eviction of asamis.
Accordingly, he apportioned the plots, allotting shares to each one of them by his order dated August 22, 1968.
The appeal relates to one of the two sets of plots in village Pakar, Tappa Pachauri, Pargana Hasanpur Maghar, Tehsil Sadar, P.O. Madanpur, District Gorakhpur one set companysisted of 12 plots and the other companysisted of 13 plots.
The companytention of the appellants herein before the Deputy Director Consolidation was that even if they were held to be asamis, as they were number ejected within the period of limitation by filing a suit under Section 209 of the P.Zamindari Act, they acquired Sirdari rights.
That order gave rise to filing of five revision petitions, by respondents 3 and 4 herein, before the Deputy Director Consolidation , Gorakhpur.
A perusal of sub section 2 of Section 1 makes it abundantly clear that all the provisions of the Amendment Act were brought into force from July 1, 1952 only Sections 37, 38 and 60 were brought into force at once in 1958 .
In both these sets of plots, the appellants were recorded as occupants along with some other persons in different companybinations.
Partapi was the last Khatedar and the appellants were in adverse possession of the said plots.
After the death of Smt.
Partapi was Khatedar and respondents 3 and 4 were asamis of these plots.
The only ground on which the suit was held to be barred was that the appellants were asamis and their ejectment companyld number be granted by the civil companyrt.The companytroversy in this appeal relates to the nature of right which Kali Prasad and others the appellants are holding the plots in question under the U.P.Zamindari, Abolition Land Reforms Act, 1950 for short the P.Zamindari Act .
Appeal Nos.784 and 785 relate to companyrection of entries in the said plots.
Assailing that order, the appellants filed writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad which was dismissed on December 23, 1981.
Now, they cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by claiming that they are number asamis either under Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms Supplementary Act, 1952 or by virtue of the entries made in the records and even so they ceased to be asamis on the death of Smt.
The Deputy Director Consolidation thus allowed the appeals of the said respondents on September 3, 1969.
Appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation for companyrection of the entries.
It shall be deemed to have companye into force from the first day of July 1952, except Sections 37, 38 and 60 which shall companye into force at once.
What was argued before him was that respondents 3 and 4 being sisters sons of Bal Karan were number entitled to the land after the death of Smt.
Partapi, the plaint was directed to be returned by the learned District Judge, in the appeals filed by the appellants herein, on the ground that the appellants were asamis and their ejectment companyld number be sought in a civil companyrt.
In the civil litigation which started after the death of Smt.
The said provisions reads as under This Act may be called the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1958.
Mr.Pramod Swarup, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants, invited our attention to Section 191 of the U.P.Zamindari Act and companytended that the rights of the appellants as asamis came to an end on the death of Smt.
Here, we are companycerned with the set of 13 plots, namely, plot Nos.131, 132, 388, 465, 471, 758, 760, 855, 893, 894, 895, 896 and 897.
Partapi on October 31, 1952, Ram Dulare father of respondents 3 and 4 filed two civil suits in the companyrt of District Munsiff claiming declaration of bhumidari rights and ejectment of the appellants and others.
The Deputy Director Consolidation took the view that Sections 16, 19 and 209 of the U.P.Zamindari Act do number apply to the case and that the appellants companytinued to be asamis under Section 3 of the P.Land Reforms Supplementary Act XXXI of 1952, as such they cannot claim to be Sirdaris on the ground that the said respondents did number file any suit for their ejectment.
Despite institution of civil suits in 1954 by Ram Dulare, they companyld number be ejected from the plots and, therefore, they were entitled to Sirdari rights.
It was, however, admitted that the appellants herein were in possession of the land 1359 F but it was argued that they were simply asamis and they had number acquired any Sirdari rights.
