Raghvendra Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Initially the plaintiff-appellant, Kishna Behari instituted Original Suit No. 1602 of 1999 against Smt. Chandrawati and others for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed vide order dated 27.4.2011 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge ( Jr. Division), Court No. 15, Allahabad. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff-appellant preferred First Appeal No. 1136 of 2011 against Smt. Urmila Devi and others which too has been dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Court 19, Allahabad vide order dated 29.7.2016 and the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court was affirmed. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the courts below, the instant appeal is before this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff-appellant is the owner of Araji Nos. 136 and 260 and is recorded in the revenue record as Bhumidhar. It is submitted that so long entry continues, it is to be treated to be valid and there shall be presumption under section 57 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act about the correctness of the entry. The plaintiff-appellant claims to be the owner by virtue of the will deed 12.11.1994 executed by Triveni Prasad who was recorded tenure holder of the property in dispute. Triveni Prasad, at the time of death, left behind his wife. The couple was issuless. The plaintiff appellant initiated proceeding before the appropriate authority under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and pursuant to the order passed therein dated 23.4.1999, the name of the plaintiff-appellant was recorded as owner in place of Triveni Prasad. Smt. Chandrawati filed a restoration and plaintiff's name was deleted/stayed. Smt. Chandrawati executed a registered will in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on 7.8.2003 and she subsequently died. The mutation proceeding are pending.;