Mahesh Narain Shukla, J. - (1.) The debate in the present case has centred round the question as to whether any rights had accrued to the respondents u/S. 20(b) of the U.P. ZA & LR Act. The facts of the case are somewhat involved. It appears that Murli Dhar and Bhim Narain Singh Zamindars filed a suit against Mahadeo Narain Singh, a co -sharer (father of the defendant -appellants) which was decreed on 9 -8 -1945. The decree was executed and the plaintiffs of that suit obtained possession of the plot in dispute in the same year. The judgment -debtors filed an appeal and it is alleged that during the pendency of that appeal the plaintiffs of that suit executed a lease of the plot in favour of Oudh Misra (father of the plaintiff -respondents) and possession was delivered to the latter. The appeal itself was allowed on 8 -1 -1948 and Dakhal was taken by the defendants on 26 -6 -1948. As I shall indicate hereafter the finding recorded by the courts below in the present case is that only formal possession was taken and Oudh Misra and thereafter his heirs continued to be in physical possession of the plot until they were ousted on 13 -1 -1956. The defendants in the earlier suit after obtaining a decree from the appellate court applied for restitution. Oudh Misra (lessee) filed objections in the restitution proceedings which were dismissed on 3 -10 -1948. He preferred an appeal which was also dismissed on 20 -9 -1949. He then filed a revision which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 4 -2 -1955. In the above circumstances Oudh Misra filed the present suit No. 506 of 1955 on 5 -11 -1955. However, it appears that during the pendency of the suit the present defendants appellants succeeded in obtaining possession from Oudh Misra on 13 -1 -1956. The suit was for permanent injunction and alternatively for possession with the allegations that the plaintiffs were tenants of the plot in question prior to the coming into force of U.P. Act I of 1951 and had been continuously in possession over the same, that they became sirdars on the enforcement of the aforesaid Act and on depositing ten times rent acquired bhumidhari rights in the plot in suit. It was also pleaded that they were recorded occupants in the year 1356F and by virtue of that entry they had acquired adhivasi rights and later became sirdars. Other pleas were also raised which need not be mentioned as the learned counsel for the appellants has confined his submissions before me to one major point.
(2.) The defence of the present appellants was that the plaintiffs had no right or tenure in the plot in suit nor were they in possession. On the other hand, the defendants themselves claimed to be the bhumidhars of the plot and in possession as such.
(3.) The suit was decreed by both courts below and hence this second appeal on behalf of the defendants.;