Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Swapnil Kumar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.11.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Etah, allowing SCC Revision No. 13 of 2003 and while setting aside Trial Court’s judgment dated 29.8.2005 passed in SCC Suit No. 34 of 1993, it has directed the Trial Court to decide suit on merits.

3. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 29.8.2005 has returned plaint by holding that it is a title dispute and, therefore, under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1887”), the plaint is to be returned to plaintiff so as to be lodged in regular Court but this order has been set aside by Revisional Court holding that there was no such dispute of title which would have deprived jurisdiction of Small Cause Court from deciding matter and the Small Cause Court should have proceeded with the matter on merits to decide the same.

4. The dispute relates to House No. 148/1 and 148/2, situate at Mohalla Govind Das, Kasba Aliganj, Pargana Azam Nagar, Tehsil Aliganj, District Etah. Originally Sri Ambika Prasad Mishra was the owner of aforesaid house. After his death the property was inherited by his son and daughters, i.e., Sri Sacchidanand and his six sisters, namely, Uma Devi, Rani Devi, Basanti Devi, Rajendra Kumari, Sharda Devi and Sarla Rani. The plaintiffs claim that vide sale-deeds dated 13.3.1992, 16.3.1992 and 23.3.1992 the entire property was purchased from various co-owners and since then plaintiffs are owner and in possession of disputed property. Before alleged purchase, Sri Karim Baksh, father of defendants, and Sri Lal Mohammad, were tenants at the rate of Rs. 10 per month. After the death of Sri Ambika Prasad Mishra, rent was collected by Sri Sacchidanand as owner and landlord of property in dispute. Sri Karim Baksh died in 1990 conferring co-tenancy rights upon defendants/legal heirs. The plaintiffs gave notice to defendants on 5.8.1992, regarding purchase of property in dispute. The rent fell due from August, 1992, demand whereof was raised vide notice dated 27.1.1993 which was served upon defendants on 2/3.2.1993 but they did not pay rent, consequently on the ground of non-payment of rent, suit for eviction and recovery of rent was instituted by plaintiffs-respondents vide plaint dated 11.10.1995.

5. Petitioners-defendants contested the suit wherein they did not dispute that initial ownership of house in question vested in Sri Ambika Prasad Mishra. It is, however, said that after his death his son and six daughters each became co-owner to the extent of 1/7 part each of disputed house. Sri Sacchidanand Mishra executed sale-deed dated 13.3.1992 transferring 1/2 of 6/7 share of disputed property though his share was only 1/7 and he could not have executed sale-deed more than that. It is said that another sale-deed was executed by Sri Sacchidanand Mishra on 16.3.1992 transferring 1/2 part of 6/7 share in favour of Smt. Shashi Prabha though here also it was not permissible for him to sell more than his share. The defendants got sale-deeds executed from legal heirs of Smt. Rani, daughter of Sri Ambika Prasad Mishra and Smt. Uma Devi another daughter of Sri Ambika Prasad Mishra. They became owner to the extent of shares of those two daughters of Sri Ambika Prasad Mishra, i.e., to the extent of 2/7 in the property in dispute. Since Sarla Devi also executed a sale-deed in favour of plaintiffs, therefore, plaintiffs also became owner of 2/7 share of property in dispute. The defendants remitted rent to the extent of 2/7 share but plaintiffs declined to accept the same.

6. Before Trial Court the plaintiffs claimed, that two sale-deed, set up by defendants, having executed in their favour by two daughters of Sri Ambika Prasad Mishra, i.e., Smt. Rani and Smt. Uma Devi, are forged and fictitious. They, in fa