PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act) Ist, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 128/2014.
(2.) In Original Suit No. 711 of 1997 (Amin and others v. Ram Surat & others), the paint case in brief was that plaintiffs are owner in possession, tenure holder and bhumidhar of agricultural plot no. 95 of village Pul Kohana, but name of defendants no. 1 and 2 was wrongly recorded in revenue records. For rectifying said error, case under Section 229 -B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed in revenue court, which was decided in favour of plaintiffs. Against the judgment of trial court of S.D.M., the first appeal was preferred before the court of Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, which was dismissed. Second Appeal No. 58/1988 -89 is pending before the Board of Revenue, in which said court had passed order dated 5.10.1989, by which parties were directed to maintain status quo. In spite of said interim order, defendants no. 1 and 2 had executed sale -deed of disput property in favour of defendant no. 3. This sale -deed is liable to be cancelled on the grounds that (a) the defendants are not owner and bhumidhar of disput property and had no right to execute sale -deed, (b) in view of stay order dated 5.10.1989 of revenue court, defendants no. 1 and 2 could not execute sale -deed, (c) the sale -deed in question is without consideration and was executed for harassing the plaintiff, (d) the property was not surveyed, and (e) there are other grounds of cancellation. In original suit, plaintiffs sought relief firstly of cancellation of sale -deed dated 29.11.1995 executed by defendants no. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant no. -3 and for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of plaintiff.
(3.) In written -statement, the defendants denied the paint averments and pleaded that Second Appeal No. 58/1989 was decided by Board of Revenue in favour of defendants and it has been finally held that defendants are owner in possession of disput agricultural property. This judgment is binding on plaintiffs and his suit is barred by Section 11 CPC. It was also pleaded that the name of defendant no. -3 purchaser has been recorded in revenue records, and plaintiffs has no right to get the sale -deed in question cancelled and his suit is liable to be dismissed.;