SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Madan Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, representing respondent No. 3.
(2.) In view of the order proposed to be passed, no notices are required to be issued to respondent Nos. 2/1 and 2/2. However, if the respondents are aggrieved by the order proposed to be passed by this Court, they would be entitled to file a recall application praying for recall of the present order.
(3.) Admittedly, one Champa Devi was the original tenure holder of the property in dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 and his heirs. After the death of Champa Devi, respondent No. 2 filed Case No. 189/80 of 2007 under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') claiming 1/2 share in the property of Champa Devi, as Champa Devi had died issueless. It was alleged in the plaint instituting the aforesaid case that the respondent No. 2 and the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had 1/2 share each in the estate of Champa Devi as they were nephew and brother respectively of the deceased husband of Champa Devi. The predecessor in interest of the petitioners contested the abovementioned Case No. 189/80 of 2007 instituted by respondent No. 2 alleging that Champa Devi had executed a Will in his favour bequeathing her estate in his favour and the plaintiff- respondent No. 2 Veer Sahai had no share in the estate of Champa Devi. The trial court vide its judgement and order dated 10.6.2008/20.6.2008 rejected the Will propounded by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and decreed Case No. 189/80 of 2007 instituted by respondent No. 2.;