Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition which had been filed by the appellants.

2. The appellants were the Zamindars of certain plots in three villages in district Basti in the State of Utter Pradesh. One Tameshar was an occupancy tenant in these plots. He died in August 1945. On his death Lalai, respondent No. 4, entered into possession of the said plots asserting that he was Tomeshar's daughter's son. One of the appellants filed a suit under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act 1939 for his ejectment on the ground that he was a trespasser. That suit was ultimately dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that the plaintiff did not have the right to institute the suit alone without impleading the other co-sharers. Thereafter the appellants and others who constituted the entire body of the co-sharers instituted a fresh suit for ejectment of Lalai. The trial court decreed the suit holding that Lalai was not the daughter's son of Tameshar but was a mere trespasser. Lalai preferred an appeal to the Additional Commissioner which was dismissed in July 1951. He preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was admitted and the execution of the decree was stayed. On July 1, 1952 the , hereinafter called the Act, came into force. The hearing of the appeal was stayed under Rule 4 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. During the pendency of the appeal Ishwar Din who was one of the respondents died on August 9, 1954. The respondents contended that the entire appeal had abated for want of substitution of the heirs of the deceased respondant. The appellants, however, maintained that the suit itself had abated under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules. The two members of the Revenue Board expressed separate opinions. Shri S.N. Mitra was of the view that the appeal along with the suit had abated, whereas Shri R.N. Singh, the Judicial Member, held that the appeal had abated under Order 22, Rule 4 of the CPC. On September 20, 1956 an order was made dismissing the appeal. Lalai continued to remain in possession. He challenged the order of the Board of Revenue by means of a petition under Article 26 of the Constitution and obtained an interim order staying execution of the decree for ejectment which had been obtained by the appellants under Section 180 of the Tenancy Act. The writ petitions was dismissed by Broome J. on February 7, 1962.