JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Sudhir Bharti and learned counsel for the respondent-Gaon Sabha.

2. Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate appeared and stated before the Court that he has no instruction in the matter. Mr. Munna Pandey, Advocate has also wrote on mention slip that he has no instruction in the matter.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the suit under Section 229B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by respondent nos.4 & 5 claiming co-bhumidhari right along with the petitioner and respondent no. 7 in respect to Plot Nos. 255 and 382 (M) situated in Village-Madan Chak, Tappa Haveli, Pargana and Tehsil- Bhatpar Rani, District- Deoria on the ground that land in dispute was acquired from joint family fund in the name of petitioner and respondent no. 7. The petitioner who were defendant in the suit claiming exclusive right on the basis of sale deed executed on 4.6.1968 by Smt. Nageshari in favour of the petitioner and respondent no. 7. The trial Court without framing issue in the matter has decreed the plaintiff's suit vide judgment dated 21.3.2001 on the ground that defendants have admitted the claim of plaintiff. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner along with the prayer for condonation of delay and the Additional Commissioner i.e. respondent no. 2 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Against the judgment and decree of the Court of Commissioner, petitioner filed a second appeal before respondent no. 1 and the second appeal has been dismissed at the admission stage, hence this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court without framing issue has decreed the plaintiff's suit. He further submitted that the petitioner who was defendant in the suit claimed the exclusive right on the basis of registered sale deed executed on 4.6.1968 in his favour. He further submitted that petitioner never admitted the claim of respondent nos. 4 and 5 in suit, appeal or second appeal before courts below, the document/ application, if any, is forged and fabricated and reliance cannot be placed upon the same. He further submitted that the suit under Section 229 B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be decreed without framing issue and without giving opportunity to the party to lead evidence to prove their respective case. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in Babu vs. Mahavir and Others, 2020 146 (RD) 186. He further submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law.

5. On the other hand, counsel for respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 submitted that petitioner and respondent no. 7 have admitted the claim of respondent nos. 4 and 5 in suit, as such, there was no necessity to frame issues in the suit and the suit was rightly decreed by trial court on the basis of admission of the defendants of the suit. He further submitted that petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner against the judgment and decree of trial which was dismissed as not pressed on 22.12.2003 but petitioner again filed appeal which was also dismissed in accordance with law on the ground of limitation and the Board of Revenue has also rightly dismissed the second appeal filed by petitioner. Counsel for the contesting respondents placed reliance upon the judgment of Patna High Court reported in Satyendra Tiwari and Others, M/s Navyug Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sri Sarveshwar Tiwary and Others, 2015 (0) Supreme (Pat) 6 Paragraph No. 23 of the judgment in particular which is as follows:

“23. It is settled principles of law that the plaintiffs may plead many things in the plaint but he is required to prove those facts which entitles him to get t