Case: Munshi Muqbool Raza Vs. Hasan Raza

The trial Court decreed the suit for possession and for damages holding that the respondent had no right to remain in possession of the plots. That judgment was confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge Badaun. Stated briefly, the learned Judge held that the entires in the Revenue record, which purported to show that the respondent was in possession of the plots, did not reflect a true state of affairs, and, therefore, the respondent was liable to be evicted.3. The respondent then filed second appeal 431 of 1955 in the Allahabad High Court, which was allowed on February 27, 1968. This appeal by special leave is directed against that judgment.

Reasoning:
6. By reasons of the various developments to which we have referred above, the appellant cannot claim possession of the suit property from the respondent. The first difficulty in the ways of the appellant is that Section 5 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as amended by Act 21 of 1966, provides by(2) (a) that every suit in respect of any right or interest in any land in the area in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under the Act, pending before any Court or Authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, shall stand abated. Upholding the validity of that section, this Court in Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh [(1968) 2 SCR 95  : AIR 1968 SC 714 ], accepted the contention that the appeal pending before it had abated by reason of Section 5 (2) (a). Thus, the suit filed by the appellant stands abated.7. The other difficulty in the way of the appellant is that he was directed by the High Court to take recourse to Consolidation Authorities in regard to his alleged rights, while the second appeal was pending in the High Court. He exhausted those remedies, challenged the ultimate decision by filing a writ petition in the High Court and even that writ petition failed. He cannot, then, reagitate the same questions once over again in the second appeal. Those questions stand finally concluded by the decision recorded in the writ petition.8. Section 231 read with Section 234 of the Act of 1951 furnishes an additional ground for the respondent to resist the appellants claim. By Section 231, in so far as it is relevant, an Adhivasi continues to have all the rights and liabilities which he possessed on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, except as provided in Sections 233 and 234. We are not concerned in the instant case with Section 233, but Section 234 provides that an Adhivasi shall be liable to ejectment from the land held by him on the grounds mentioned in that section. By reason of the provisions contained in Section 235 and Adhivasi is liable to be ejected on the ground mentioned in Section 234 only and on no other grounds.