K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) BY means of this writ petition the plaintiffs-petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgments of the second appellate court and the first appellate court and have prayed for remanding the case to the First Appellate Court to decide the claims of the parties on merits. The plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a suit for ejectment under Section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the contesting defendant-opposite party Gur Charan Singh alias Gur Bachan Singh on the allegations that they were Sirdars of the land in suit and that the defendant had no concern with the same and was a trespasser, hence he was liable to ejectment. In the suit, State of U. P. was also impleaded and was a necessary party. The claim of the plaintiff-petitioner was resisted by the contesting defendant on the allegations that he was Sirdar of the disputed land and that the plaintiffs had no concern with it. U. P. State had also contested the claim of the plaintiffs and had denied the title and right of the plaintiffs in the disputed land and had asserted that notice under Section 80 C. P. C. was not properly given and that the suit was not properly valued.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were struck by the trial court and the trial court gave judgment against the plaintiffs-petitioners and found that the plaintiffs had not succeeded in proving their claim of Sirdari right in the disputed land and the defendant had also failed to prove his claim of Sirdari right in the disputed land. However, the trial court had held that the notice under Section 80 C. P. C. given by one of the plaintiffs was sufficient notice (See Annexure 'A' attached with the writ petition). Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the plaintiffs-petitioners had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that the notice under Section 80 C. P. C. was not a proper notice as one of the plaintiffs had not served the notice under Section 80 C. P. C. (See Annexure 'B' attached with the writ petition). Thereafter the plaintiffs-petitioners preferred a second appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Member in charge of the Division through his judgment dated 3-10-1969 (See Annexure 'C' attached with the writ petition). Against the judgment of the second appellate court a review petition was also filed which was also dismissed through the judgment dated 31-8-1977 on record (See Annexure 'D' attached with the writ petition). Now the plaintiffs-petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that one of the plaintiffs could bring a suit under Section 209 of the Act against the defendant trespasser hence the notice on behalf of one of the plaintiffs under Section 80 C. P. C. was a proper notice and the first appellate court as well as the second appellate court have patently erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit due to alleged defective notice under Section 80 C. P. C.;