- (1.) Heard Sri C.K. Rai, Advocate, for appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondents though the case has been called in revised and name of Sri Avadhesh Singh has been shown in the cause list and counsel for respondents. In these circumstances, I proceed to hear and decide this appeal after hearing learned counsel for appellant.
(2.) This appeal was admitted vide order dated 12.5.2014 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether in view of the law laid down in Azahar Husain and others Vs. District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1998 RevDec 493 the decision of the Courts below for upholding the Civil Court jurisdiction suffers from the error of law? (ii) Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the Suit of the plaintiff-respondent is not barred by section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act is contrary to law laid down in AIR 1991 SC 249? (iii) Whether the decree passed by the Courts below suffers from the error of law as the Courts below have acted on conjecture and surmises in ignoring the entries in the revenue papers in favour of the appellant?"
(3.) Both the Courts below have found that defendant-appellant was in possession of property in dispute and in the revenue record, his name was entered but observing that revenue entries have been obtained probably fraudulently, Courts below have granted injunction in favour of plaintiff by ignoring the said entries. It is contended that once the revenue entries exists in favour of defendant, the same could not have been ignored by Civil Court and the revenue entries could have been disputed before the Revenue Court. Reliance is placed on the Apex Court's decision in Azahar Husain and others Vs. District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1998 RevDec 493.;