- (1.)FEELING aggrieved by an order dated 7-12-1996 passed by the First Appellate Court whereunder allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the trial Court, rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 22, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code seeking to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of Mataprasad, the defendant No. 1 the said application has been granted, the proposed defendant has now approached this Court seeking reversal of the impugned order and restoration of the order of the trial Court.
(2.)I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-applicant as well as the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents and have also carefully perused the record.
(3.)THE facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. The suit giving rise to this revision had been filed by the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 6 against Mataprasad, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and the Madhya Pradesh State Government through Collector, which had been impleaded as defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs claimed a declaratory decree to the effect that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were co-owners in possession of the agricultural holdings in dispute to the extent of half share and plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 6 were co-owners to the extent of 1/4th share and were entitled to get their names recorded as such in the revenue papers in place of the name of the defendant, Mataprasad. The plaintiffs had alleged that Mataprasad was the real brother of Shriram and ramswaroop, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, and the real uncle of plaintiff No. 3 and plaintiffs Nos. 4, 5 were his nephews. The land in dispute was claimed to be coming down from the common ancestor but in the revenue record it stood recorded exclusively in die name of Mataprasad, showing him to be the sole owner thereof.