ORDER

S.K. Dhaon, J. - This is a plaintiffs writ petition arising out of a suit for declaration under S. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The subject matter of the controversy is certain grove land of which the petitioner claims to be a co-Bhumidhar along with respondent 4, Ramu. The plaintiffs case is that the land in suit is a joint family property and after the date of vesting the family became the Bhumidhar of the same and, therefore, he and the defendant Ramu (respondent 4) are co-sharers. Amongst other pleas, the defendant in his written statement pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff has surrendered his rights in the land a long time back and since the said surrender he was in continuous possession over the land to the exclusion of the plaintiff.

2. The trial court negatived the plea of surrender raised by the defendant. It, however, relying upon the oral and some other evidence plus the deposition made by the plaintiff in the suit, recorded a finding that the defendant acquired rights by prescription and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit. In second appeal the Board of Revenue has set aside the decree of the first appellate court and restored the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit. Hence this petition.

3. In second appeal, the Board of Revenue has recorded a finding that the ouster of the plaintiff from the land in dispute stands established from the admission made by the petitioner (plaintiff) in his deposition in the suit itself.

4. In support of this petition it is urged that in the absence of any plea of ouster in the written statement, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to throw out the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the rights of the plaintiff stood extinguished. A true copy of the written statement of Ramu, the defendant, has been filed along with a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. I have gone through the written statement more than once. It is true that neither the word ouster has been used in the written statement nor is such a plea specifically raised as required by the form of general defence given in Schedule I appendix A of the Code of Civil Procedure. A written statement should normally be in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Times out of number courts have deprecated the practice of not observing the rule. But at the same time a court of law should be loath to reject a written statement outright on account of a technical defect. Therefore, nothing will turn upon the written statement not being in accordance with Appendix A to Schedule I. We have to concentrate on the substance of the averments made in the written statement and not the form.

5. The plea of surrender of the land in dispute by the plaintiff has been taken in specific terms. This plea, as already stated, has not found favour with the trial court. Nonetheless, the contents of the written statement have to be scrutinised to discern whether the necessary facts constituting ouster have been stated or not. It is to be borne in mind that the word `ouster' has no magic enchantment. True, it has acquired a legal connotation and the mere use of this word conveys the legal implications which are attached to it. However, if, instead of using the word the draftsman puts in the relevant material from which such a defence can be inferred, the requirement of the law is complete and courts of law will have to proceed on the assumption that a plea of ouster has been really taken.

6. In pars 12 of the written statement it was averred that Sukkhu, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, migrated to the place of his in-laws about 80 to 85 years back, he surrendered his rights in all his properties including the land in dispute and since then he had no connection left with any of t