K.P.Singh - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgments of the revenue courts the plaintiff petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE plaintiff petitioner filed suit under section 229-B/209 of the UP ZA and LR Act for declaration of her right in the disputed plots. Her case was that the disputed plots belonged to her father Bachchan alias Ram Bach- chan. On the death of her father, her mother inherited the property in suit. On the death of her mother, she inherited the peoperty on 3-4-1953. According to her Ram Gati (maternal grand father) got a forged sale deed executed in his favour on 24-4-53 by some imposter representing that the transferor was the plaintiff's mother. THE aforesaid Ram Gati thereafter transferred the disputed land to Ram Chandra and others who are denying the title of the plaintiff petitioner. The claim of the plaintiff petitioner was contested by the contesting opposite parties 6 to 9 in the present writ petition and various pleas were taken to negative the claim of the plaintiff petitioner as is evident from the issues framed in the suit. One of the issues raised on behalf of the defendants opposite parties in the suit is that the plaintiff's suit is barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. All the revenue courts have given judgments against the plaintiff petitioner, therefore, the present writ petition.
(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the revenue courts have patently erred in applying the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. According to him the judgments of the revenue courts are patently erroneous and against the dictum of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgments. According to him the plaintiff petitioner had filed objection in the year 1964 claiming title to the property in dispute and her claim was not entertained by the consolidation courts on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner's claim was negatived during the consolidation operation and she cannot be permitted to reagitate the matter.;