A.P.Sahi - (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.
(2.) THE petition arises out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act') for a declaration to the effect that the respondent No. 6 plaintiff be declared to be the successor of the holding in dispute that was recorded in the name of late Jagdeo. The petitioner No. 1 is the daughter of the petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner No. 2 is the natural son of late Jagdeo. When the suit was instituted by the respondent No. 6 claiming himself to be the son of late Jagdeo then Jagdeo was alive and he was arrayed as a defendant in the suit. Jagdeo had executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner No. 1 and it is alleged that she was a minor at that point of time. The plaintiff respondent No. 6 contended that the sale-deed was without consideration as the petitioner who was a minor then had not paid any consideration and it was a sham transaction. Late Jagdeo contested the suit and denied being the father of respondent No. 6 and instead gave a statement to the effect that the mother of Chhote Lai, respondent No. 6 came to live with him and when she came, she had brought with her Chhote Lai, who had been borne out of the wedlock of one Mahavir.
(3.) THE clear case, therefore, setup was that Chhote Lai was the natural son of Mahavir, even though, Jagdeo after arrival of Chhote Lai had looked after him and had also extended certain benefits including the construction of house and purchase of property in his name. Another objection taken by Jagdeo was that consolidation operations have intervened and Chhote Lai has never claimed his title separately and as such any such plea through a suit under Section 229-B would be barred. It was further agitated by Jagdeo that the family register that was set up by Chhote Lai did not contain the correct entires and a photo-stat copy had been produced, which was inadmissible in evidence and otherwise had not been proved. THE suit was decreed. It was further contended that the issues though framed, the same were not decided separately, and therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was not in accordance with Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Paragraph 34 of the Revenue Court Manual.;