The court reiterated that admissions in a written statement regarding property transactions create binding effects on claims of ownership, thereby restricting contesting rights based on previously established legal determinations.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Certified copy of the order dated 4.4.2017 passed in Writ C No.9879 of 2017 as well as true copy of written statement filed in Suit No.86 of 1974 at the instance of learned counsel for the respondent no.4 are taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Ram Sajiwan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. G.S.D. Mishra and Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. Shashi Kant Kushwaha, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to khata No. 55, 56 arazi Nos. 357, 358 and 359, total area 3-5-0 situated at Village Hanspur, Tehsil and District Kanpur Nagar. In the basic year khatauni, plots in question were recorded in the name of Shiv Ratan Singh (petitioner’s father). One Shiv Pal Singh filed a suit under Section 229 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act) for declaration which was registered as suit No. 270 of 1970 before Sub Divisional Officer, Kanpur Nagar. The aforementioned suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgement and decree dated 31.3.1973. On the restoration application filed by Shri Somnath Shukla, ex-parte decree dated 31.3.1973 was set aside and the suit was ultimately dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 9.12.1998. Appeal filed by Shri Shiv Pal Singh against the judgement and decree of Trial Court dated 9.12.1998 was allowed on 26.7.2000, setting aside the judgement and decree of Trial Court dated 9.12.1998. Restoration application filed on behalf of Shri Somnath Shukla against the judgement dated 26.7.2000 was dismissed on 3.8.2000. The Additional Commissioner ultimately vide judgement dated 20.1.2001 allowed the appeal No. 100/115 of 2000-21, setting aside the judgement and decree dated 9.12.1998 passed by Trial Court and decreed the plaintiff’s suit declaring the plaintiff (Shiv Pal Singh) as bhoomidhar with transferable right. Petitioner challenged the judgement and decree of first Appellate Court dated 20.1.2021 by way of second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was registered as second appeal No. 23 of 2000-01. The aforementioned second appeal was heard and allowed by Board of Revenue vide judgement and decree dated 30.3.2007, setting aside the judgement/ decree dated 20.1.2001 passed by First Appellate Court. Due to death of plaintiff-Shiv Pal Singh, his legal heirs (Rakesh Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh) filed a restoration application on 29.8.2008 before the Board of Revenue. The aforementioned restoration application dated 29.8.2008 was rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 10.4.2013. Rakesh Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh (legal heirs of Shiv Pal Singh) filed Writ B No.37472 of 2013 before this Court against the order dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Board of Revenue. This Court vide order dated 15.7.2013 allowed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that the Board of Revenue has not framed the substantial questions of law while deciding the second appeal and the matter was remanded back before the Board of Revenue to decide the second appeal afresh, after framing substantial questions of law in case it arises and then proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. The Board of Revenue vide subsequent order dated 15.4.2015, allowed the second appeal filed by the petitioner (Beni Singh), setting aside the order of the 1^st appellate court dated 20.1.2001 and affirmed the judgement/decree of the trial court dated 9.12.1988. Rakesh Pratap Singh