S.K.Lakhtakia, J. - (1.) This is a plaintiffs' second appeal under Section 331 of U.P Act No. 1 of 1951 against the Judgement and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra Division, Agra dated 5-9-1975 dismissing the appeal against the Judgement and decree of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Agra dated 24-4-1973 dismissing the plaintiffs suit under section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951.
(2.) The facts of this case may be summarised as follows:- Plaintiffs Hakim Singh & others brought a suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1952 against defendants Hakim Singh and Chhitaria both of whom are real brothers under Section 209 of the Act stating that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 Devi Singh are Co-tenants but the defendants have forcibly occupied the land from 1369 Fasli by taking Taking Devi Singh in the collusion but without the consent of the plaintiff and are liable to ejectment it was also alleged that the defendants No.1 and 2 had raised objection during the consolidation proceedings but their claim was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 14-2-1963 and the plaintiff and Devi Singh were held to be bhumidhars it was alleged that in this way the rights of the parties have been finally determined by the consideration courts but the land being that of behar or (in ravines). it is out of consolidation scheme and possession has not to be delivered by the consolidation authorities, hence the plaintiff have brought this suit even before the de-notification of the village under Section 52 of the consolidation of Holdings Act. The plaintiff consequently claimed possession and damages against the defendants.
(3.) The defendants filed separate written statements. The defendant Madho Singh admitted his possession on plots No. 1202, 1206, 1207, 1208 while the defendant Chhetaria claimed possession only two plots namely 1210 and 1213. Their defense is that they have been in possession for more than 25 years and had perfected their title by adverse possession and the suit is not cognisable by the revenue court and that the damages are exorbitant and is bad for misjoinder of parties. It was also alleged that till the de-notification under Section 52 of the C. H. Act this suit could not be filed.;