JUDGEMENT
Janardan Sahai, J. -
(1.)Heard Shri Chandra Shekhar holding brief for Sri G. N. Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Dr. V. S. Dwivedi learned senior counsel representing Respondent No. 4.
(2.)Ram Bharose was the tenant of the land in dispute. He was the common ancestor of the parties. He had three sons, the Petitioner Buddhu, Bhulai father of the other Petitioners and Lalloo father of Panna Lal Respondent No. 4. A suit under Sec. 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by Panna Lal Respondent No. 4 for declaration that he is the sole sirdar of the property described in Schedule 'A'. In paragraph No. 2 of the plaint, copy of which has been filed along with supplementary-affidavit, it was stated that the land described in Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C' was ancestral and in paragraph No. 4 it is stated that during his life time Ram Bharose had got the name of the first Defendant Buddhu entered over the land of Schedule 'B' and of Bhulai, father of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 over the land of Schedule 'C'. Alternatively it was claimed by Respondent No. 4 that if he is not declared sole sirdar of the property described in Schedule 'A', he may declared co-tenant of all the properties described in Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C'.
(3.)The Defendants denied that the Plaintiff is sole sirdar of the land in schedule A. It was alleged by the contesting Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 that the land mentioned in paragraph 16 of the written statement was acquired by Bhulai, the father of Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and was his separate property and the land mentioned in paragraph No. 18 of the written statement was the tenancy of Ram Bharose which devolved on the Plaintiff and the Defendants and as such the Plaintiff is co-sirdar thereof along with the Defendants.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.