Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS ap peal arises out of a suit for ejectment of the respondent Bir Sahai under Sec tion 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act.
(2.) IT appears that the coloniza tion plot No. 12 was settled with Bir Sahai in 1951 by the Administrative Officer. Colonization Department. Dis trict Nainital. According to Bir Sahaf, plot No. 12 consisted of revenue plots Nos. 101 and 105. Disputes arose be tween Bir Sahai respondent and Man Singh appellant in regard to a portion of plot No. 105. The appellant claimed to be hereditary tenant of 15 Bighas and odd area of plot No. 105. On 2nd November. 1957. Bir Sahai filed a suit No. 279 of 1957 in the Court of the Munsif, Nainital. for an injunction. He arrayed the Administrative Officer. Co lonization Department and the appellant as defendants to the suit. The praver was that the defendants be restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from Colonization Plot No. 12. The ap pellant contested the suit. According to him. a 15 Bigha area of plot No. 105 was not part of colonization plot No. 12 and on 20th November, 1957. this area of plot No. 105 had been allotted to him by the Administrative Officer Co lonization Department and he was the rightful hereditary tenant of this area. The learned Munsif held that Colonization plot No. 12 included the entire area of plots Nos. 101 and 105. The lease in favour of the plaintiff in cluded the entire area of plot No. 105. The Administrative Officer had no power to lease out any part of plot No. 105 to the defendant Man Singh. The allotment in his favour was invalid. Plaintiff Bir Sahai was found to be in possession of the land in dispute. On these findings the suit was decreed. Man Singh preferred an appeal. The learned District Judge confirmed the findings on merits and dismissed the appeal on 8th July. 1959. The appellate decision became final between the par ties.
(3.) SHORTLY thereafter on 27th October. 1959 the appellant Man Singh filed the present suit under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act in the Reve nue Court for ejectment of the respon dent. One of the pleas raised in defence was that the previous decision in the civil suit operated as res judioata. The present suit was confined to the 15 Bigha area of plot No. 105 which alone was claimed by the plaintiff as his here datary tenancy. In defence it was plead ed that the plaintiff had no right in the land as the area in dispute had been allotted to him by the Administrative Officer.;