R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) THE above noted three petitions arise out of the Suit No. 87 of 1975 filed under Section 229B/209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for short 'the Act' by Smt. Rama Devi, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 38131 of 1995, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. In all these cases, subject matter of dispute is the same, as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, they were, therefore, connected, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the aforesaid petitions are that Smt. Rama Devi filed Suit No. 87 of 1975 under Section 229B/209 of the Act for declaration and ejectment against Smt. Gomti Devi, widow of Murari Singh, and others pleading that she was bhumidhar and in possession of the land in dispute, that originally Ram Lal son of Jhandu Singh, brother of her husband, was a tenant of the same. He executed a Will in her favour on 8.7.1965, which was registered on 15.7.1965. It was on 14.9.1966 that Ram Lal disappeared from the village and remained untraceable (lapta). One Ram Charan also lodged a first information report at the police station on 7.10.1976 regarding the disappearance of Ram Lal. Since the aforesaid date more than 7 years have elapsed, therefore, Ram Lal shall be deemed to have died civil death on 14.9.1973, hence the plaintiff on the basis of the aforesaid Will became bhumidhar of the land in dispute. It was on 1.1.1973 that Smt. Gomti Devi, defendant No. 1, applied for mutation claiming that she was the sister of deceased Ram Lal. Smt. Rama Devi, plaintiff, also filed an application for mutation of her name over the land in dispute in the revenue papers on the basis of the aforesaid Will. To the said application Smt. Gomti Devi filed objection. The mutation proceedings were summary in nature and in the same title of the parties to the land in dispute could not be decided. On the other hand, one Raghuvansh, father of Yatindra and others, was asserting his possession over the land in dispute. It has been stated that mutation application was also filed by Smt. Rama Devi before Tehsildar, Dhampur after serving notice upon the defendant Nos. 3 and 4, but the same was not decided, hence the suit for aforesaid reliefs. In the aforesaid suit three written statements were filed. One by the State pleading that the plaintiff Smt. Rama Devi was not the tenant of the land in dispute and that the suit filed by her was barred by Section 34 (5) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. Second written statement was filed by Smt. Gomti Devi, who pleaded that the plaintiff had no right in the land in dispute in her presence. The suit, therefore, according to her, as framed and filed was legally not maintainable. The plaintiff was neither tenant nor in possession of the land in dispute. After the death of Ram Lal, who was her real brother, she inherited the land in dispute and was in possession of the same. It was also pleaded that no Will was executed by Ram Lal in favour of the plaintiff. The Will deed set up by the plaintiff was a forged and fictitious document and that Ram Lal had no brother and defendant No. 1 Smt. Gomti Devi was the real sister, who inherited the land in dispute after the death of Ram Lal. According to her, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The third written statement was filed by Raghuvansh, father of Yatindra, Jitendra and Virendra, respondents, pleading that the Will set up by the plaintiff was a forged and farzi document, the same was never executed by Ram Lal and that he was in adverse possession of the land in dispute on the basis of which he acquired sirdari rights in the same.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as eight issues, which are quoted below : (1) Whether the plaintiff is bhumidhar of the land in dispute? (2) Whether Ram Lal has died as alleged in the plaint and the suit is maintainable? (3) Whether Ram Lal has executed any Will in favour of the plaintiff? (4) Whether defendant No. 1 is the bhumidhar of the land in dispute? (5) Whether defendant No. 1 is sirdar of the land in dispute? (6) Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 (5) of the U. P. Land Revenue Act? (7) Whether any notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was given to the State of Uttar Pradesh, if any, effect? (8) What relief, if any, plaintiff is entitled?;