The binding effect of previous decrees on the appellant's claim to the property and the limited impact of findings in summary proceedings on the decrees rendered by competent courts.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The respondent No.1, herein, was a plaintiff in a regular Suit No.36 of 2013, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and another, in relation to a property, which was more appropriately described as to be a land, which was lying in Khata Khatauni No. 15, present Khata No. 42, measuring 119 x 63 square feet of land, i.e. equivalent to 0.065 hectares of land situated in Village Sitabpur, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal.

2. The said Suit proceeded, which after the exchange of pleadings was decided by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) by the judgment and decree of 25th July, 2015, and as a consequence to the judgment and decree rendered in Suit No. 36 of 2013, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and another, the learned Trial Court by its judgment as aforesaid, had dismissed the Suit of the respondent No.1, herein, but that dismissal of the Suit would be qua the Uttarakhand State and the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who were the opposites parties therein, in the Suit.

3. The judgment of 25th July 2015, was put to challenge in a regular Civil Appeal, being Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2015, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and others, in which, the present appellant was for the first time introduced as opposite party No. 3.

4. The Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2015, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and others, has been considered on merits and decided by the learned Appellate Court by the impugned judgment of 16th May, 2016, as rendered in Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2015, Kishan Lal Satija Vs. Uttarakhand State and others.

5. Consequent to it, the resultant effect was, that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 25th July, 2015, was set aside.

6. Before this Court proceeds to address the issue on merits, it becomes inevitable for the Court to deal with certain very vital aspects, resulting into an adjudication of a right by way of regular proceedings in relation to the land, in dispute, as decided by the Court of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, in a regular proceeding which were held under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. In fact, in the regular proceeding, which was decided by the Court of Assistant Collector, it was Suit No. 26 of 1984 – 85, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. Chandan Singh, and it would be appropriate to observe, at this stage itself, that Chandan Singh; was the predecessors in interest of the present appellant/defendant.

7. Consequently, the Court of Assistant Collector, which was a regular Court for deciding the title over the property in dispute by the judgment of 10th March, 1986, had decreed the Suit and had held the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, as to be the owner in possession of the property, in dispute, and the reason, which was observed therein was, that the predecessors of the appellant, late Mr. Chandan Singh, had also instituted a Suit way back in 1994 before the Court of Munsiff, which was dismissed. The decree of 1994 as it was rendered against the predecessors of the appellant, late Mr. Chandan Singh had attained finality, qua the property, in dispute, which was decided in a regular proceedings under Section 229-B, as decided on 10th March, 1986.

8. The respondent No.1, herein, claiming himself to be aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered in a proceeding, under Section 229-B, had preferred a ZA Appeal No. 12 of 1985-86, which too was dismissed by the Court of Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, by the judgment of 7th November, 1986.

9. Once again, at this stage itself, this Court feels it to be appropriate to observe, that as against the principal judgment which was rendered in a proceeding under Section 229-B, no Appeal was preferred by the predecessors of the present appellant, apart from the fact, that the predecessor of the appellant was already a judgment debtor in a prior instituted Suit of 1984.

10. The Z.A. Appeal as decided by the Court of Additional Commissioner on 7th November, 1986, was carried to Board of Revenue by way of chal