The central legal point established is the impact of pending revenue proceedings on the grant of permanent injunction and the significance of a revisional court's decision in establishing ownership.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - This Second Appeal, was preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants, challenging the impugned judgment dated 03.08.2012, as was passed by the Court of learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was rendered in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2011, Niranj an Sardar and another Vs. Ravindra Nath Sardar and others, whereby the Appeal, which had been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants, was dismissed and as a consequence thereto, it had resulted into an affirmation of the judgement and decree dated 21.02.2011, which was passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rudrapur, in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009, Niranjan Sardar and another Vs. Ravindranath and others, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed.

2. The fact, as emerging for consideration, from the said suit, which was instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants were that, they had contended that they are the brothers and cousin brothers of the defendants/respondents to the suit and on account of a wrongful interference which was being made by them, over the property in question, they had instituted a suit for the grant of a decree of permanent injunction in relation to the property, which was the subject matter of the suit, lying in khata khatauni No.328, khasra No. 558, having an area of 1.606 hectares, out of which the land having an area of 0.404 hectares, was settled with them under the family settlement of 25.09.1995, which the plaintiffs/appellants contended that the disputed land had fallen in his share in accordance with the family settlement, which had been arrived at between them on 25.09.1995.

3. The defendants/respondents before the trial Court had filed their written statement admitted the fact of the family settlement and had also admitted the fact that the said family partition, was placed on record before the Court below, but they have contended that since their names have been recorded in the revenue records, over the aforesaid disputed land and hence they denied the fact of there being a family partition, having been taken between them, they admitted recording to their names on the basis of family settlement.

4. A finding has been recorded that the defendant No. 3, had put in appearance before the Court below and had filed his written statement as paper No. 22(ka), but subsequent thereto, he had not participated in the proceedings before the trial Court, similarly, defendant Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 had not appeared before the trial Court, hence the case was directed to be proceeded ex parte against them by an order dated 06.10.2009, which remained intact till the trial Court decided the suit.

5. Based on the inter se pleadings, which was raised between the parties, the learned trial Court had framed the issues on 22.01.2010, and thereafter, additional issue was framed on 19.02.2010, to the following effect:-

6. Primarily, the issue of concern would be the issue No. 1, which was formulated to the effect, that as to whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the property in question, which they have contended to have fallen in their shares, in terms of the family settlement dated 25.09.1995, which was a fact, the execution of which was not denied by the defendants/respondents, in the proceedings before the Court below.

7. Another issue, which might have been relevant would be the findings which has been recorded by trial Court on issue Nos. 5 and 7, pertaining to the bar being created by Section 10 of the CPC, and issue No. 7, because of the issue agitated of the bar of maintainability of the suit being created by the provisions contained under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act.

8. The plaintiff, in support of his contention had placed the documents on record by way of list paper No. 8(ga) i.e. khata katoni pertaining to thefasli year 1414 to 1419, as well as the khatoni pertaining to 1402 to 1406 fasli. Apart from it, the oral testimony was also recorded of the plaintiffs as PW1 of Nira