- (1.) Heard Sri Kapil Muni Debey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) Facts, in brief, is that the property in suit is landed property which belongs to the petitioner. When the petitioner was minor and during his study period, the land in question was given to opposite party no.3 for the purpose of kast on batai and as soon as the petitioner became major and completed his study, he tried to obtain the land from opposite party no.3. Opposite party no.3 entered his name in class IX and denied to leave his possession on the basis of entry made in class IX. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit for ejectment under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which was decreed, against which an appeal was filed and was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition was filed which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 28.11.1994.
(3.) When the petitioner was under the preparation to file a suit for declaration, the opposite party no.3 filed a case under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act for entering his name in the revenue record in the main column on the basis of judgment and order passed in the proceeding under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which was rejected with the finding that the right and title had not been ascertained in the proceeding, as such no entry is required on the basis of the judgment and order passed in proceeding under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Thereafter, opposite party no.3 filed regular suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act for declaration of right and title. The suit was dismissed in default and after lapse of long spell of time, a restoration application was moved which was rejected on 12.8.1996. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the opposite parties which was allowed and remanded the matter on 13.2.1998. Thereafter, the suit was again decided ex parte and was dismissed on merit on 12.6.1998.;