Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants and Sri Pramod Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nirmal Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 16.5.2016 whereby the plaint of the plaintiffs-appellants has been returned for filing before the Revenue Court in view of the Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1950).

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as emerging from the documents on record is that one Mohan Lal was the owner of the property in dispute. He had two sons, namely, Radhey Shyam and Kitab Singh. Radhey Shyam had one son Ramesh Chandra and one daughter Smt. Anita Devi. Kitab Singh had four sons, namely Pradeep Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Vijendra Kumar and Sheelendra Kumar, who are the appellants No. 1 to 4 in this appeal. The appellant No. 5 is the widow of late Kitab Singh. During the lifetime of Mohan Lal his son Radhey Shyam died and his widow Smt. Kamla Devi is reported to have married somebody else.

4. The case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that Mohan Lal executed a Will of the property in question in favour of Kitab Singh and after the death of Kitab Singh the property in question has now vested in the plaintiffs-appellants. It is stated that after the death of Radhey Shyam as well as Mohan Lal the name of Kitab Singh was recorded in the revenue records by the order dated 10.9.1991. Ramesh Chandra son of Radhey Shyam moved an application before the Tehsildar seeking mutation of his name over the property in question and therefore by order dated 2.3.1992 the application was allowed and the name of Ramesh Chandra son of Radhey Shyam and grand son of Mohan Lal was entered into the revenue records alongwith that of Kitab Singh. After the death of Kitab Singh the names of Pradeep Kumar, Sandeep Kumar, Vijendra Kumar and Sheelendra Kumar were entered in the revenue records vide order dated 7.7.1992.

5. It appears that the plaintiffs-appellants filed objections with regard to recording of the name of Ramesh Chandra over the property in question and that an application to that effect was filed on 1.8.1992 which was allowed and the order dated 2.3.1992 was set aside.

6. The relevant revenue records, photocopy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, however, show that an appeal was filed against the order dated 1.8.1992 and the operation of the order dated 2.3.1992 was stayed. The records also show that the appeal is still pending and the stay order continues to be operative.

7. The revenue entries further show that on 15.9.1992 the name of one Chiranji Lal son of Raja Ram was also recorded in the revenue records and after the death of Chiranji Lal the names of Ram Kishan and Son Pal, sons of Chiranji Lal was recorded on 20.3.1993. Thereafter the name of Son Pal was removed from the revenue records and the name of Yasoda Devi wife of Salig Ram, respondent No. 5 was recorded over some part of the land. It appears that thereafter Ramesh Chandra also died and over half share of the property in question the name of Anita Devi, respondent No. 4 as heir and daughter of Radhey Shyam was entered in the revenue records on 8.5.2012. Smt. Anita Devi in the meantime is stated to have sold her half share of the property of the total area of 46.85, in favour of Ramveer Singh, Yogendra Singh, Roomal Singh, whose names were recorded in the revenue records on 9.4.2013. The plaintiffs-appellants thereafter filed a Suit No. 288 of 2012 for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 11.5.2012. In the meantime the Suit No. 288 of 2012 was re-numbered as Original No. 1/2016 (Pradeep Kumar and others v. Ramveer Singh and others). In the suit proceedings the plaintiffs-appellants filed an application seeking ad-interim injunction which was grant