- (1.) This is a plaintiffs' second appeal from a judgment and decree of Sri K.N. Pandey, the then Third Additional District Judge, Jaunpur, dated 21.01.1992, dismissing Civil Appeal no.236 of 1982 with costs, and affirming an original decree of Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, the then Third Additional Munsif, Jaunpur, dated 17.09.1982, passed in Original Suit no.517 of 1980, dismissing the said suit for reliefs of permanent prohibitory injunction and cancellation. This appeal was admitted to hearing on the substantial question of law, whether the suit is barred under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act.
(2.) This Appeal was heard on the said question of law on 27.02.2019 and judgment was reserved. This Court felt that some other questions of law, relative to the question last mentioned, but framed in more specific terms, that would enable parties to better address the Court on their respective case, were required to be framed. Accordingly, this Appeal was posted for further hearing on 01.05.2019. On the said date, the following substantial questions of law were framed: "(i) Whether a suit held barred by the provisions of Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act would entail a decree of dismissal of the suit, or an order for return of the plaint to be presented to a Court of competent jurisdiction? (ii) Whether the rights and title of parties to land concluded in terms of an order passed by the Consolidation Authorities and recorded as such in the Revenue Records can be re-agitated by the said parties in a suit before the Civil Court notwithstanding the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act? (iii) Whether an order of the Consolidation Courts deciding rights of parties in terms of a compromise, not set aside on ground of fraud or otherwise within the prescribed period of limitation is relevant evidence in a subsequent suit inter partes relating to the same land litigating under the same title under Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act?"
(3.) The first question of law as rephrased takes in its fold the substantial question law, on which this Appeal was admitted to hearing. Question nos.2 and 3 are added questions with reference to different issues. The learned counsel for the parties were, accordingly, heard afresh on 01.05.2019, and judgment was reserved.;