S.U.Khan - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders passed by Consolidation Officer (C.O.), Settlement Officer of Consolidation (S.O.C.) and Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.C.). Revision before the D.D.C. was registered as Revision No. 59, Pearey Lal v. Vinod Kumar and others and was dismissed by the D.D.C., Meerut on 29.7.1980. The dispute relates to agricultural land left behind by Brahma Singh. On the death of Brahma Singh (who died unmarried) his real brother Gajendra Singh (original respondent No. 5) claimed the land in dispute on the basis of succession/inheritance. Pearey Lal petitioner asserted that Gajendra Singh had executed an agreement for sale about the land in dispute in his favour after getting his (Gejendra Singh's) name mutated in revenue records and after obtaining permission for sale from S.O.C. Pearey Lal also filed suit for specific performance before the civil court against Gajendra Singh. In the said suit Vinod Kumar real son of Gajendra Singh filed impleadment application, which was opposed by Pearey Lal and Vinod Kumar who was minor aged about 6 or 7 years at that time claimed that Brahma Singh had firstly adopted him and secondly he had executed a Will in his favour. He filed application through Mahendra Singh his sister's husband, rejected by the Court. The Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyam Perumal, AIR 2005 SC 2813, has held that rival claimant to ownership is neither necessary nor proper party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The impleadment application was rejected holding that neither Will nor adoption was proved. The suit for specific performance was afterwards decreed. In said suit, it was decided that Gajendra Singh had executed agreement for sale in favour of Pearey Lal. Before the civil suit was decreed proceedings had started before the consolidation courts and an application for staying proceedings of the suit till decision by the C.O. was filed, which was rejected. C.O., S.O.C. as well as D.D.C. have held that adoption as well as Will was proved. If either of these two things stand proved, Vinod Kumar is entitled to get the property in dispute.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that as after executing agreement for sale, Gajendra Singh had become dishonest hence, he put forward his minor son Vinod Kumar and falsely asserted that Brahma Singh had adopted Vinod Kumar and had also executed a Will in favour of Vinod Kumar. It is correct that as Vinod Kumar was not party in the civil suit hence, findings recorded therein are not binding upon him.;