B.K.RATHI, J. - (1.) Both these revisions have been directed against the common order passed in suits Nos. 44 of 1993 and 45 of 1993 by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Hamirpur on 27.9.1993. The facts of both the suits are connected and, therefore, the matter has been decided by the common judgment by the trial court. Both the revisions are accordingly disposed of by this common order.
(2.) I have heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri A. K. Gupta. Learned counsel for the revisionists. Sri P. P. Srtvastava, learned senior advocate and Sri Anil Srivastava were appearing on behalf of the opposite party and they took several adjournments for advancing their arguments. However, ultimately on 8.7.2002 they have withdrawn from the case and thereafter no body appeared for the opposite party. It appears that they were unable to support the order of the learned Additional District Judge and, therefore, had withdrawn from the matter and thereafter, no body has come forward to argue the matter on behalf of the State of U. P. The facts giving rise to these revisions in brief are as follows : 'Two Suits Nos. 44 of 1993 and 45 of 1993 were filed by the opposite party. State of U. P. against the revisionists of the two revisions. The property in dispute in Suit No. 44 of 1993 are plot Nos. 16, 17 and 18 of Patti Ram Swroop of village Meerapur Danda which comprises a portion of the premises of Kothi Naraln Rao in Hamirpur Town. In Suit No. 45 of 1993 the dispute is regarding plot Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the same Kothi of the same village, however, of different Patti of Madan Mohan. The reliefs in both the suits are for declaration that the State of U. P. is absolute owner of the said plots and Kothi since its confiscation in the year 1858 and the present revisionists had no title or interest in the said plots, with further request for cancellation of decrees of suit No. 21 of 1972 regarding plot Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 and suit No. 88 of 1972 regarding plot Nos. 16, 17 and 18, which are in favour of the revisionists. The request for permanent injunction to restrain the revisionists from interfering in the possession of the opposite party over the said property has also been made. In suit No. 45 of 1993, a further request has been made for issue of mandatory injunction directing the revisionist No. 1 to refund a sum of Rs. 9,64,996.17 p. illegally taken byhim, as compensation on 24.5.1978 for plot Nos. 5 and 7 with interest @ 15% till the date of the payment.
(3.) IN brief it was pleaded in the suits by opposite party that the Kothi was constructed in the year 1830 by an English Officer and subsequently sold it to Naraln Rao and Madho Rao. This Kothi was known as 'Kothi Narain Rao' situated in an area 58.14 acres. That this Kothi always remained in the ownership of the State Government and on the basis of forged and fictitious entries, it was claimed by the revisionists. That the entries were obtained in collusion with the revenue officials for illegal gains. That the decrees of two suits were obtained on the basis of the collusive entries. The plaintiff -opposite party came to know about the fraud and collusion in the year 1980 when the decree were put to execution. Accordingly, the suits were filed. In both the suits, the defendants -revisionists moved applications under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaints alleging that their title is admitted and the matter has been decided finally several times from the highest Court of the land and it cannot be agitated again. That, therefore, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suits are totally vexatious and meritless. Both the applications were rejected by the common order by the trial court and, therefore, these two revisions have been preferred.;