N.D. OJHA, J. :- These four special appeals have been filed against a common judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in two connected writ petitions.

2. Village Karothi, Pergana Siana, district Bulandshahr was brought under consolidation operations under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the basic year Jamshed Ali and Mukarram Ali appellants in Special Appeal No. 1071 of 1967 were recorded as bhumidhars of plot Nos. 30 and 34/1 M whereas Mushtaq Ali father of Nawazish Ali and Kallu appellants in Special Appeal No. 1070 of 1967 were recorded as bhumidhars of plots Nos. 31 and 34/1 M. Dhan Singh appellant in Special Appeals Nos. 1056 and 1058 of 1967 filed objections claiming to be a grove-holder of the plots in dispute and in the alternative to have become sirdar by virtue of his long continuous possession. This was, however, not the first litigation between the parties. Jamshed Ali and Mukarram Ali had filed a suit on June 28, 1949 for the ejectment of Dhan Singh from plot Nos. 30 and 34/1 under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. The said suit was stayed on September 23, 1949 in pursuance of an order passed by the State Government. Subsequently proceedings were initiated under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code by Jamshed Ali and Mushtaq Ali in respect of plot Nos. 30 and 31. These proceedings were also decided in favour of Dhan Singh. The two plots aforesaid stood attached during the pendency of the proceedings and a Sapurdar was appointed thereof. On the proceedings culminating in favour of Dhan Singh possession was delivered to him by the Sapurdar of January 7, 1951. Mushtaq Ali thereafter filed suit No. 303 of 1951 in the court of Munsif, Bulandshahr on May 30, 1951 against Dhan Singh and impleaded Jamshed Ali and Mukarram Ali as pro forma defendants. As would appear from the Judgment of the learned Single Judge the case set up in the plaint of this suit by Mushtaq Ali was that Jamshed Ali and Mukarram Ali were co-khudkasht holders with him but since they were not present in the locality they were being impleaded as pro forma defendants. This suit as originally filed was for permanent injunction restraining Dhan Singh from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff Mushtaq Ali and defendants 2 and 3 Jamshed Ali and Mukarram Ali over all the three plots Nos. 30, 31 and 34/1.

The suit was filed on the allegation that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 were in possession of these plots as Khudkasht holder and that the sugarcane and mango crops of these plots belonged to them and that defendant No. 1 Dhan Singh wanted to take them away forcibly and also wanted to take forcible possession over these plots. The sugarcane and mango crops were, however, taken away by Dhan Singh during the pendency of the suit whereupon Mushtaq Ali amended his plaint and claimed a decree for damages in the sum of Rs. 800/-. The suit was contested by Dhan Singh inter alia on the ground that he was a hereditary tenant of the plots in dispute and that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants 2 and 3 were either khudkhast-holders of these plots or were in possession thereof. An issue about the tenancy right of Dhan Singh was specifically framed being issue No. 3 on the pleadings of the parties and was referred to the revenue Court. The Revenue Court recorded a finding that Dhan Singh had been in possession at any rate from 1355 F. and on May 30, 1951 when the suit was filed he had acquired rights of hereditary tenant under Section 18 (2) of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Accepting this finding the Munsif dismissed the suit which decree was upheld even on appeal by the Civil Judge on January 31, 1956.

3. During the pendency of Suit No. 303 of 1951 aforesaid Jamshed Ali and Mukarram Ali filed suit No. 224 of 1953 in the court of Munsif, Bulandshahr for the relief of permanent injuction restraining Dhan Singh from interfering with their possession over plot Nos. 30 and 34/1 and in the alternative for the relief of possession. A simi