Satish Chandra, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal. It arises out of a suit for an injunction and possession.
(2.) THE plaintiff claimed that the land in dispute was included in the chak allotted to him under the Consolidation operations. Defendants 3 to 5 had, in collusion with defendants 1 and 2, illegally constructed a drain over the land in dispute. THE plaintiff also claimed damages of Rs. 100/-. Defendants 1 and 2 were the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Executive Engineer, Canal Division, Defendants 3, 4 and 5 were the individuals who are alleged to have committed the wrongful act in collusion with the canal department authorities. The State as well as the canal Department filed one written statement while defendants 3 and 4 filed another written statement. The case of the State was that the land in dispute did not appertain to the plaintiff's chack and that the canal department was entitled to construct the drain. Defendants 3 and 4 pleaded that the plaintiff had no title to the disputed land and that the canal department had rightly constructed the drain. The trial court held that the land in dispute was not part of the plaintiff's chak. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff went up in appeal. The appellate court held that the land in dispute was not subject to consolidation operations and any allotment made by the Consolidation Authorities was without jurisdiction. The plaintiff hence could not claim a valid title to the land in dispute. It was also held that defendants 1 and 2 were justified and within their rights to reconstruct their Barah. The claim for damages also was repelled. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the second appeal in this Court.
(3.) IT appears that while the appeal was pending in the lower appellate court, Chajju, defendant No. 3, died on January 3, 1967 long before the decision of the appeal on April 24, 1967. In the lower appellate court this fact was not brought to the notice of the court and the court proceeded in ignorance of that fact. In the second appeal, the plaintiff moved an application for substitution of heirs of Chajju but the same was dismissed on March 2, 1968. A learned single Judge felt doubtful whether the appeal was, under the circumstances, competent. He referred the entire case for decision by a larger Bench. That is how the matter has come up before us.;