By the Court : - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of two suits filed by the Petitioners Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and the original Petitioner No. 2 who is dead and now represented by his heirs mentioned in the present writ petition against Sardari Lal and Sikandari Lal (opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4) now represented by their heirs mentioned in the writ petition, under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".
(2.) THE disputed plots in the present writ petition are 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135 and 1136. The Petitioners claimed Bhumidhari right in the aforesaid plots and asserted that the Defendants had taken illegal possession, hence the suits for ejectment of the Defendants under Sections 209 of the Act. It had been alleged by the Plaintiffs -Petitioners that Smt. Ram Pyari was a hereditary tenant of the disputed plots and she had sold 4/5th share in the disputed plots to other Plaintiffs, hence all claimed Bhumidhari right in the disputed plots and prayed for ejectment of the Defendants from the same. The Defendants, in both the suits, denied the claim of the Plaintiffs. They asserted that they had been in possession over the plots in their possession since long; hence the Plaintiffs' suit was barred by time and also on the principle of estoppel. Sardari Lai claimed Sirdari right in the plots in his occupation on the basis of a lease from other co -sharers whereas Sikandari Lai claimed sirdari right on the basis of a lease with regard to the plots in his occupation, executed by Ganesh Prasad, Lumbardar. Defendants in each suit also raised a plea that the lease executed by Bhagwan Das in favour of the Plaintiff Smt. Ram Pyari was against the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, hence it did not confer any right upon Smt. Ram Pyari and the other Plaintiffs also did not derive any title to the disputed plots on the basis of the sale deed executed by Smt. Ram Pyari, their favour. It was alleged by the Defendants that Smt. Ram Pyari was a close relation of Bhagwan Das, hence the lease in her favour was not a genuine lease and Plaintiffs were not Bhumidhars of the disputed plots, hence the suits were not maintainable against them.
(3.) IT is noteworthy that the disputed plots Nos. 1131, 1132, 1133 and 1134 were in possession of Sikandari Lai and plots Nos.1135 and 1136 were in possession of Sardari Lai.;