H. N. Seth, J. - (1.) These three petitions by Mohd. Faruq raise common questions of facts and law. They have been heard together and can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) The petitioner Mohd. Faruq and the main contesting respondent Smt. Zahida Bibi are related to each other in the manner disclosed by the following admitted pedigree:- The dispute between the parties relates to certain plots of land which originally were the sir and khudkasht of Mohd. Kamil. According to Smt. Zahida, in due course, after the death of Mohd. Kamil those plots developed on Mohd. Faruq, Kabirunnisa and herself, but in village papers the name of Mohd. Faruq alone was entered. Accordingly, Smt. Kabirunnisa filed a civil suit (number 588 of 1952), purporting also to be on behalf of Smt. Zahida, for a declaration that they were co-tenure holders of the plots in dispute along-with Mohd. Faruq. On 30th September, 1954, Smt. Kabirunnisa and Mohd. Faruq filed a compromise application before the court stating that she was giving up her claim to the plots in dispute. The Civil Court accepted the compromise and dismissed the suit in terms thereof, in so far as Smt. Kabirunnisa was concerned. However, as on that date no one appeared on behalf of Smt. Zahida, the suit, insofar as one was concerned, was also dismissed and the name of Mohd. Faruq alone continued to be recorded in the village papers. Subsequently, on 30th August, 1967, Smt. Zahida, filed suits numbers 973, 974 and 975, in the court of Assistant Collector first class, under Sec. 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and claimed declaration in respect of the disputed plots. The petitioner contested those suits on the allegation that he was the sole Bhumidhar of those plots and had in any case, perfected his title by adverse possession. He further pleaded that the civil suit filed by Smt. Zahida, had been dismissed for default on 30th September, 1954, the only remedy which she had, was to get that order revoked and that the present suit was barred by Order IX, R. 9, C. P. C. In order to meet the plea of her suits being barred by O. IX, R. 9, C. P. C. Smt. Zahida took up the stand that she had not joined civil suit No. 588 of 1952 as a plaintiff.
(3.) The trial court held that Smt. Zahida was a plaintiff in suit No. 588 of 1952 and that her suit has been dismissed for default. The present proceedings were thus barred by O. IX, R. 9, C. P. C. On merits it found that Smt. Zahida had no right in the plots in dispute and that in any case her claim was barred by time. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by Smt. Zahida and affirmed the decrees passed by the Assistant Collector. Thereafter, Smt. Zahida filed three second appeals and took the matter up before the Board of Revenue. The Board allowed the three appeals and set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the two courts below and decreed Smt. Zahida's claim for a declaration that she was a co-tenure holder of the plots in dispute. It held that the present suits were not barred by O. IX, R. 9, C. P. C Smt. Zahida had a share in the property coming down from Mohd. Kamil and that in the circumstances, Mohd. Faruq did not nature title by adverse possession.;