Neutral Citation No. - 2020:AHC:36724 Court No. - 38 Reserved A.F.R.

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 23996 of 1994 Petitioner :- Lakhan Respondent :- Board Of Revenue Counsel for Petitioner :- S.N. Verma,Ajay Krishna,Ajay Shankar, Archana Singh,Rama Nand Gupta,Shreeprakash Singh,Triveni Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Anil Kumar Rai,Anshika Agrawal, Anupam Laloriya,D.N.Gupta,Ekansh Varma,K.B. Garg,K.K. Dubey, K.N.Saxena,Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari,Radha Kant Singh,V.K. Gupta, V.K.Singh,Vishal Agarwal,Vishal Agrawal,Vishnu Singh Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

1. This writ petition is directed against judgments and decrees dated 28.04.1994 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad in Second Appeal Nos. 151, 152 and 153 of 1989-90, reversing a judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated 24^th April, 1990 passed in Appeal No. 90/6/1986-87, 91/7/1986-87, 92/8/1986-87 and restoring the decree of the Sub Divisional Officer, Jhansi dated 27.07.1987 passed in Suit No. 105 of 1984-85, dismissing the petitioner’s suit.

2. Petitioners are plaintiffs of four suits being Suit Nos. 83, 84, 85 and 86 all brought against one Sadarani and various proforma respondents, all co-sharers of Khata No. 60 and 57 of village Dongari, Tehsil and District Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’).

3. By the suits aforesaid, brought under Section 229B, the plaintiffs, sought a declaration that the name of Sadarani, widow of Parikshit, recorded co-tenureholder in the suit property, be expunged and that of the plaintiffs, along with proforma respondents to the suit, be recorded to the exclusion of Sadarani over the suit property. It must be mentioned here that from the papers placed on record of the writ petition, there is some discrepant description of the precise numbers of suit filed and there respective suit numbers. The judgment of the Trial Court indicates that two suits were filed being Suit No. 87/1984-85 and Suit No. 85/1984, both of which were consolidated into a single suit bearing No. 105/1984-85. How two suits could be consolidated and given a single suit number, is not in keeping with fundamental principals of numbering suits. But, that is how it is described in the judgment of the Trial Court. In the proceedings in Appeal before the Commissioner and in Second Appeal before the Board, four suits brought by these plaintiffs- petitioners find clear mention, bearing suit Nos. 83, 84, 85 and 86 all of 1984-85. Whichever way the proceedings have been registered and dealt with, but in substance the suits under reference were brought for a declaration to exclude the name of Sadarani, the common defendant to all the suits from the revenue records, pertaining to the suit property. Sadarani is now dead and represented by her daughter respondent no. 3, Smt. Prema before this Court.

4. The facts giving rise to the suits that have culmiated in this writ petition can be better appreciated with the aid of the following pedigree:

Balu Hardas Parikshit (Deceased)

Smt. Sadarani (Widow)

Sahab Singh Lakhan Ramesh Jugraj Naval (P-4) (P-1) (P-3) (P-2)

5. It is common ground between parties that the original owner of the suit property was one Balu, who had two sons Hardas and Parikshit. The suit property was inherited in equal share by Hardas and Parikshit. Hardas had four sons, Sahab Singh, Lakhan, Ramesh and Jugraj. In the array of parties, petitioner no. 4, Naval is shown as son of Hardas but the name of Sahab Singh is not mentioned. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that Naval has been incorrectly described in the array as son of Hardas. In fact, he is the son of Sahab Singh, who died pendentelite. The other son of Balu, Parikshit, is said to have died some time in the year 1944 leaving behind his widow, Sadarani. Parikshit died issueless. Some issue has been raised about this matter by Sadarani which in due course would be noticed and dealt with. Again, it is common ground between parties that Sadarani’s na