C.L.VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a Second Appeal under Section 331(4) U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed against the decree and judgment dated 31-3-1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Admin). (Judicial-II) Varanasi in Appeal No. 18 of 1990 Lalmani v. Mahadeo and others whereby the appeal filed against the decree and judgment dated 2-5-1990 passed by S.D. Sadar in Suit No. 58/03/118 under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act decreeing the suit on the basis a compromise after restoring the same was allowed and the suit filed by Mahadeo and others was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts of this case in brief are as follows: The Plaintiff's/Appellants Mahadeo and others brought a suit under Section 229-B of the Act on 3-10-1977 alleging that they and the defendants Lalmani and Algoo are members of a joint Hindu family and the land in dispute was acquired from joint family fund for the whole family but it was solely recorded in the name of Kalu; the predecessor of the defendants even through the plaintiff's have been continuously in joint possession there of along with the defendants; but their name could not be recorded as Co-tenants hence they claimed Co-Bhumidhar right along with the defendants in the land. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a Written Statement they denied that the plaintiff's and the defendants are members of Joint Hindu family or that Kalu was Karta of the family. They pleaded that the land was exclusively acquired by Kalu and the plaintiff's same no title or possession over the land and that their defendants are sole bhumidhars of the land. On 7-1-1978 parties filed on compromise which was verified by the Court did not accept it and ordered the plaintiff's to produce evidence 20-1-1978, 14-2-1978, 4-3-1978 and 27-3-1978 were fixed for their evidence 27-3-1978 happened to be a holiday hence as per procedure the case was taken up on the next day i.e. on 28-3-1978 but the plaintiff's were absent hence the suit was dismissed for defendants.
(3.) THEN an application under Section 151, 152; C.P.C. moved on 20/21-1-1988 stating therein that the parties had filed compromise and the Counsel for the plaintiff's had explained that the suit would be decided as per terms of the compromise hence the plaintiff's did not appear as a result the suit was dismissed. I was therefore prayed that the suit be restored and the same be decided in terms of the compromise.;