Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—One third share of House Nos. 491, 491/1 & 492/2 and one third share of 9.51 acre of Bhumidhari land situated in Dandia Pura, Jhansi was sold by Nathua, Ram Lal and Param sons of Bhonde to Manohar Lal son of Mohan Lal vide sale-deed executed on 5.11.1966 registered on 8.11.1966. The said property constitute one third share of Nathua and others mentioned herein above who were recorded as Bhumidhar. The said property was partitioned by sons of Mohan Lal by executing partition deed dated 6.11.1968 which was registered on 23.11.1968. By virtue of the said partition deed Damodar Das son of Mohan Lal got in his share whole of House Nos. 491, 491/1, 492/2 and whole of one third share of the land 9.51 acre which are 26 in numbers. By a separate registered sale-deed executed on 24.12.1974 the land was transferred in the name of present petitioners which bears the signature of Param and Ram Lal as witnesses who initially sold this land to Manohar Lal in the year 1966 and since then they are in possession over the same. It is also revealed from the writ petition that Nathua, Ram Lal and Pram were tenants of Damodar Das in the house and after the execution of the sale-deed they became tenants of the petitioners. On account of non payment of rent they were dispossessed from the land after decree of their eviction was passed by the competent Court on 6.5.1976 in J.S.C. Suit No. 163 of 1975 filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, Original Suit bearing O.S. No. 69 of 1981 for declaration with a prayer for mandatory injunction was filed before the Civil Judge, Jhansi by the Nathua, Ram Lal and Param against the petitioners Manohar Lal and Damodar Das and others for seeking the cancellation of the sale-deeds executed on 5.11.1966 and 24.12.1974. The said suit was tried after framing as many as nine issues and was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.1984. Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties held as under :

(i) That the plaintiffs in the suit was Bhumidhar which right they had acquired after depositing ten times revenue in lump sum.

(ii) That the contention of the plaintiffs that it was a mortgage deed executed in lieu of having taken loan from erstwhile vendee Sri Mohan Lal is not correct and held that the sale-deed was executed on 5.11.1966. A categorical finding was recorded that It was not a mortgage deed.

(iii) That the plea of plaintiffs that they were sirdars and did not have right to affect the transfer of the property in question was not factually correct. Finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that before execution of the sale-deed they had acquired the status of Bhumidhar. This finding was recorded on the basis of depositing of ten times revenue which conferred them the right to affect the transfer of the land.

(iv) Prayer of the plaintiffs that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit as it was specifically barred by Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, was rejected on the ground that the issue involved in the present suit was to examine the validity of the sale-deeds as such Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain such suit.

2. Against the judgment and order dated 2.8.1984, a Civil Appeal was preferred by Nathua, Ram Lal and Param against the petitioners in the Court of District Judge, Jhansi, which stood dismissed vide order dated 8.9.1986 passed by Ist Addl. District Judge, Jhansi. Thereafter, a review petition was filed against the said judgment in which it was contended that the application of the appellants plaintiffs regarding treating them to be Bhumidhar was rejected vide order dated 27.1.1967 which came to the knowledge of the appellants/plaintiffs after passing of the appellate order. It is said that since the document was not available at the time of dismissal of the Civil Appeal it be taken on record and accordingly the judgment be reviewed. This plea was rejected on the ground that there was a clear recital in the sa