Hirdey Nath Kapoor, J. - (1.) Shakloo son of Dabar Ahir, one of the defendants in suit No. 2136 of 1957, has filed the present second appeal. He has arrayed Munshi Ahir, plaintiff of the suit as respondent No. 1. Pekhu Ahir, Pujan Ahir and Kishore Ahir, the three brothers of the appellant, who were co -defendants along with him have been arrayed as respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in this appeal. Relationship between the parties will be evident from the following pedigree, which is not in dispute. Plaintiff Munshi brought the suit on the allegation that the grandfather of the parties i.e. Khelawan, along with his brother Budh Raj, was the sub -tenant of plot No. 940 area 1.072 acres. The name of Budhraj was entered in village papers and he died issueless. After his death, Khilawan, the grandfather of the parties, continued to remain in possession over the plot Plaintiff's father Chekuri pre -deceased Khilawan. On Khilawan's death Dabar's name alone was entered in village papers although the plaintiff also continued to remain in joint possession over the plot along with Dabar. After Dabar's death the defendants got their names mutated and wanted to oust the plaintiff from possession. Munshi then moved an application before the revenue court for correction of papers. During these proceedings parties resolved their dispute and moved an application, dated 27 -8 -1956, stating that the parties have compromised their dispute. It was agreed that the plaintiff was also a tenure -holder along with the defendants and it was by mistake that his name had not been entered in the village papers. It was prayed that the name of the plaintiff be also entered in the village papers. In order to settle their future dispute the parties had agreed that the plaintiff would cultivate 406 Karis of the plot towards the west whereas the remaining plot would remain under the cultivation of the defendants. A certified copy of this application has bean filed as Ex. 1 in this case. According to the plaintiff, the defendants again started interfering with his possession over this piece of land, hence he prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the western portion of plot No. 940 measuring 406 Karis. In the alternative, he claimed that, if he was found to be out of possession over the plot in dispute, a decree for possession may also be passed. The defendants claimed that whole of plot No. 940 had been settled by the Zamindar with their father Dabar who was separate from his brother Chekuri. After Dabar's death the defendants succeeded him. When UP ZA & LR Act, (UP Act I of 1951) came into force, they acquired Adhivasi rights which in the year 1954 were converted into Sirdari rights. According to them, plaintiff was not in possession of the land in dispute and had no title to it. They also raised a plea that the suit was barred by limitation.
(2.) Trial court referred the issue about Sirdari rights to the revenue court which held that the defendants were Sirdars of the land in dispute. Trial court adopted the finding recorded by the revenue court and held that the plaintiff had no right in the land. It was also found that entries made in various revenue records showed that it were the defendants who had been in possession over the land in dispute throughout. The suit filed by the plaintiff was, therefore, barred by time. In the result plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
(3.) Plaintiff then went up in appeal. Lower appellate court was of opinion that the issue about Sirdari right should not have been referred to the revenue court. It accordingly remitted the issue about the Sirdari rights of the parties to the trial court for recording its own finding. After going through the evidence on the record, the trial court reported to the appellate court that in its opinion also the defendants were the Sirdars of the land and that the plaintiffs had nothing to do with it.;