Ashok Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.9.2002 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Budaun in Criminal Revision No. 01 of 2002 Ram Avtar and Ors. v. Ganga Singh and Anr. It should be mentioned here that original revisionist, Ganga Singh, has died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. It has further been worth mentioning here that Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 have sold away the property in dispute to Smt. Jagwati, Smt. Maya Devi and Yashpal Singh who had moved an application before this Court for impleadment on 20.4.2010 being Crl. Misc. Impleadment Application No. 112080 of 2010. In paragraph 2 of their affidavit attached to the impleadment application these three persons have said that they have purchased the properties in dispute through registered sale deeds and now they have stepped into the shoes of original Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. After hearing the parties and perusing the records the impleadment application is allowed. The present revisionists are directed to implead these three persons namely Smt. Jagwati, Smt. Maya Devi and Yashpal Singh as opposite party Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
(2.) ACCORDING to the revisionist one Bankey Lal was the original owner of the land in dispute. Bankey Lal was issueless and he did not have any brother or sister. He lived with the original revisionist Ganga Singh and had given physical possession of the land in dispute to him who was cultivating the same on "Batai" basis. Ganga Singh also looked after Bankey Lal properly and keeping in view the services rendered by Ganga Singh to him, Bankey Lal executed a will in respect of the disputed properties in favour of Ganga Singh. On the other hand it is the case of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 that one Sewa Ram was the real Bhanja of Bankey Lal and Sewa Ram was the only legal heir of the deceased Bankey Lal. Sewa Ram was the father of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and father -in -law of opposite party No. 4. It should be mentioned here that the husband of opposite party No. 4, Ram Naresh, has already died.
(3.) IN the above set of factual circumstances, Ganga Singh on one hand and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 on the other hand were claiming ownership of the disputed property. A civil suit was filed but during the pendency of the said suit, consolidation proceeding started in the said village and as a consequence the suit abated under the provisions of Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The record shows that till date the ownership of the property in dispute has not been decided finally by a court of competent jurisdiction.;