RAJAN ROY,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Vimal Kishore Verma counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 and learned standing counsel for opposite party No. 1.
(2.) It is not in dispute that opposite party No. 2 herein (Sarju) was the original tenure holder of the holding in dispute. He is said to have executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner No. 2 Moolchand on 13.04.1961 in respect of the said holding who in turn is said to have executed another sale-deed on 04.06.1990 in favour of petitioner No. 1 Prakash Chand. On start of consolidation operation, consequent to a notification under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1953'), objections were filed by the petitioner No. 2 claiming title over the holding in question in respect of which the opposite party No. 2 was recorded in the basic year Khatauni as the tenure holder, based on the sale deed dated 13.04.1961 albeit on 16.02.1981. The opposite party No. 2 filed his objections to the objection of petitioner No. 2. Consolidation Officer decided the matter in favour of petitioner No. 2, meaning thereby he rejected the objection of the opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 16.06.1989 as he found the sale deed dated 13.04.1961 to be proved.
(3.) Being aggrieved the opposite party No. 2 Sarju filed an appeal bearing No. 390 of 192 which was also dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his judgment dated 17.03.1990. At this stage i.e. after passing of the order by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in his favour, the petitioner No. 2 sold of the land in dispute to petitioner No. 1 on 04.06.1990. The contention is that this was done prior to receiving notice of revision filed by opposite party No. 2 against the aforesaid order. In the year 1990 itself, it is said, that the opposite party No. 2 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners in respect of land in dispute which was held to be maintainable by the Civil Court vide its order dated 13.04.1992 against the petitioner No. 1 but found the suit to be barred against petitioner No. 2. While passing the said order he also dwelt upon the merits and validity as also veracity of the sale deed mentioning that the sale deed dated 13.04.1961 was void.;