JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, counsel for the respondent no. 14 and learned standing counsel for the state-respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner filed a case under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the Tehsidar vide order dated 20.12.2002 ordered to record the name of petitioner along with contesting respondents as legal representative of deceased Ram Singar. Agaisnt the order dated 20.12.2002 contesting respondents filed restoration application, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2003. Contesting respondents challenged the order dated 10.09.2003 in appeal, the appellate court allowed the appeal vide order dated 24.05.2004 accordingly, petitioner challenged the appellate order in revision, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2012. Petitioner challenged the orders through Writ-C No. 7735 of 2013 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2019 with direction that petitioner's second appeal pending before Board of Revenue arising out of suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act be disposed of within a period of three months and interim protection was granted for the period of three months. Petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for declaration in respect of disputed plots on 08.05.2005 after the order allowing appeal of respondent passed on 24.05.2004 arising out of proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, the trial court vide judgment dated 16.11.2007 dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner as not maintainable without framing issues. Petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.10.2012. Petitioner filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.11.2019, hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner. One suit for partition being suit no. 806 of 2012 filed by contesting respondents in respect of residential house is pending in civil court, in which petitioner was impleaded by the court. 3. This court while entertaining the writ petition has passed detailed interim order dated 01.10.2021 which run as follows:- "Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, the counsel for respondent nos. 14 and 16. 3. This court while entertaining the writ petition has passed detailed interim order dated 01.10.2021 which run as follows:- "Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, the counsel for respondent nos. 14 and 16. he present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 16.11.2007, 30.10.2012 and 20.11.2019 passed by the revenue courts dismissing Suit No. 109 of 2006 filed by the petitioner under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and also dismissing the consequential appeals filed by the petitioner. The facts, in short, are that the petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of his right in the suit property claiming himself to be a co-tenure holder along with the respondents in the suit property. The respondents who were the defendants in the said case filed an application stating that the petitioner was not the son of the original tenure holder as he had been adopted by some other person and in public dealings had represented himself as the son of his adoptive father. It appears that the defendants had also filed the registered adoption deed in support of their averment that the petitioner cannot claim any tenurial right by succession in the original suit property on the basis of being the biological son of the original tenure holder as he had already been adopted by some other person and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The trial court without framing any issues, relied on the adoption deed dismissed the suit. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the adoption deed was not proved and merely because it was a registered document, the same could not have been relied upon and oral testimony of the petitioner was necessary in the said case. It was argued that the presumption in favour of the adoption deed could not have been rebutted without the petitioner -plaintiff being given an opportunity to appear as a witness in the case which could have been done only if the trial had started after framing the issues. It was argued that the presumption in favour of the adoption deed could not have been rebutted without the petitioner -plaintiff being given an opportunity to appear as a witness in the case which could have been done only if the trial had started after framing the issues. It was argued that the orders have not been passed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and it was not a case for rejection of plaint, therefore, issues had to be framed and any evidence could have been filed only after issues had been framed in the case. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings of the trial court are vitiated and the appellate courts have not considered the aforesaid fact in their orders. It was argued that for the aforesaid reason, the judgments and decrees rejecting the suit of the petitioner -plaintiff and the consequential appeals filed by him are without jurisdiction as the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide the case without framing issues and without giving an opportunity to the parties to produce their witness in the case. The matter requires consideration. The Standing Counsel represents respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 17, Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, Advocate represents respondent nos. 14 and 16 and Sri Chandra Sekhar Pandey, Advocate represents respondent no. 15. Issue notice by registered post with acknowledgement due to respondent nos. 4 to 13 for which steps shall be taken by the petitioner within ten days from today. In case, steps as aforesaid are taken by the petitioner, the office shall issue notice to the respondents fixing any date after eight weeks by which date the respondents may file their counter affidavit. The petitioner shall have four weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit. List for admission on 11.1.2022. Meanwhile, parties shall maintain status-quo regarding the disputed plots and shall also not create any third party rights in the same or make any further constructions on the disputed plots." 4. In pursuance of the order dated 01.10.2021 respondent no. 14 has filed his counter affidavit, the notice issued to other private respondent is sufficient as per office report dated 01.10.2022/14.10.2022. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suit for declaration under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be dismissed without framing issues in the suit. In pursuance of the order dated 01.10.2021 respondent no. 14 has filed his counter affidavit, the notice issued to other private respondent is sufficient as per office report dated 01.10.2022/14.10.2022. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suit for declaration under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be dismissed without framing issues in the suit. He further submitted that without considering the pleading of suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act it cannot be dismissed on the ground of defence set up on the basis of registered adoption deed alleged to be executed in favour of petitioner. He further submitted the petitioner is natural heir of deceased tenure holder and the natural father had not signed the alleged adoption deed as such the same cannot be relied upon unless it is proved in accordance with law. He further submitted that during consolidation contesting respondent admitted the share of the petitioner in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act which has attained finality. He further submitted that procedure adopted by trial court in deciding the suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is wholly illegal and the first appellate court as well as second appellate court have illegally affirmed the judgment of trial court as such impugned judgment passed by court below be set aside. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2020 (146) RD 186 Babu Vs. Mahabir and others in which it is held that suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be decided without framing issues. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that petitioner became adopted son of Sri Chhatrapal @ Dholar Upadhyay as such he lost right of succession in the family of Ram Sigar Pandey (natural father). He further submitted that suit filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by trial court on the point of maintainability and decree of trial court was rightly affirmed in first appeal as well as second appeal. He further submitted that although trial court has not framed issues but while deciding the second appeal the Board of Revenue has framed the three substantial questions of law on the point of admissibility of adoption deed and framing of issues by trial court and decided the same in accordance with law, as such no interference is required against the impugned judgments. He further submitted that against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.05.1996 appeal filed by contesting respondent under Section 11(1) of U.P.C.H. Act is pending before appellate court as such no reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Consolidation Officer. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that regular suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed by plaintiff-petitioner for declaration that plaintiff and respondent Ist set of co-bhumidhar and co-sharer of the plot mentioned in the bottom of the plaint situated in village Pattal, Tappa, Kasba and Pargana Haveli District Gorakhpur. The trial court without framing issues and evidence of the parties in accordance with law has dismissed the plaintiff suit as not maintainable. The decree of the trial court has been affirmed in first appeal as well as second appeal. 9. The manner in which the regular suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been decided the perusal of the judgment of trial court will be necessary. The decree of the trial court has been affirmed in first appeal as well as second appeal. 9. The manner in which the regular suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been decided the perusal of the judgment of trial court will be necessary. The relevant portion of the judgment of the trial court is as follows:- ^^eSus mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds cgl dks lquk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{;ksa ,oa dkxtkrks dk lE;d voyksdu fd;kA oknh ds fo)ku vf/koDrk dk dFku gS fd lu~ 2005 vkjŒ,yŒVhŒ392 ist rFkk lu~ 2005 vkjŒ,yŒVhŒ 421 ij nh x;h O;oLFkkvks dks m)`r fd;k gS fd ftlesa ekuuh; jktLo ifj"kn us O;oLFkk nh gS fd nkSjku eqdnek Hkwfe ds Ø; ij jksd yxk;k tk ldrk gSA blds lkFk oknh ds rjQ ls tŒfoŒ ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj vf/kŒ dh /kkjk 321&, dks m)`r fd;k gSA ftlesa oknh ds okn fcUnw ds fy, mlh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 143 ds varZxr ?kks"k.kk gksuk t:jh gSA oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdZ esa dgk fd ckcqyky Jh jke&flaxkj ik.Ms; ds iq= gS] vkSj ;g eksguyky iqj rIik dLck ijxuk gosyh rŒlnj ftyk xksj[kiqj ds fuoklh gSA ckcwyky iq= jke flaxkj ik.Ms; ds uke ls gkbZ Ldwy izek.k i=] b.VjfefM,V izek.k i=] MhŒchŒ b.Vj dkyst xksj[kiqj izek.k i=] fu;qfDRk izek.k i=] fctyh] jk'kudkMZ xkze iz/kku }kjk fn;k x;k izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij Jh jkeflaxkj ik.Ms; ds iq= ckcqyky iq= jkeflaxkj ik.Ms; gSA bl izdkj iz'uxr Hkwfe ij Lokeh o lg[kkrsnkj ckcwyky iq= jkeflaxkj ik.Ms; vafdr fd;k tkuk U;k; laxr gSA ckn /kkjk 229 chŒds varZxr iks"k.kh;\ gS]A oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds mDr dFku dk fojks/k djrs gq;s izfroknhx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdZ esa dgk fd ckcwyky oknh {ks=iky mQZ /kksyj ds nŸkd iq= gS Jh /kksyj mQZ {k=iky fuoklh lqroku tksr rglhy [kyhykckn ftyk cLrh ds jgus okys gS] bUgksus lu~ 1950 bZŒ es xksn ys fy;k FkkA blfy, xksn ysus ds le; ls gh Jh ckcwyky mQZ gjhjke ekStk lwrokutksr es gh jgrs FksA xksn ysus okys firk ds ejus ds ckn muds lEiw.kZ lEifŸk ij Jh ckcwyky mQZ gjhjke nŸkd iq= dk uke crkSj okfjl ljdkjh dkxtkr esa vafdr gks pqdk Fkk rFkk ckcwyky nŸkd iq= dk mDr fookfnr vkjkth esa dksbZ gd o fgLlk ugh cpk gSA rFkk mUgksus vius dFku esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd Jh N=iky mQZ /kksyj fuoklh lqroku tksr rIik cf[kjk ijxuk exgj iwjc rglhy [kfyykckn ftyk&cLrh esa fnukad 24 Qjojh lu~ 1950 bZŒ dks jftLVªh }kjk ckcwyky mQZ gjhjke us xksnukek tks fy;k gS] mlds lEca/k esa oknh }kjk ;g lk{; ugh izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd xksnukek fujLr gks pqdk gSA jftLVªh xksnukuk ds izek.k i= (sic) vU; izek.k i= voS/k ekus tkrs gSA mDr ds lEca/k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us lu~ 2005 RD 158 , 1995 RD 23 , 2007 RD 378 , 2007 RD 105, 1992 RD 439, 1955 RD 248, 1999 RD 330 or 2007 RD 517 ij nh xbZ O;oLFkkvks dh vkSj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkd`"V djk;k gSA vkns'k mijksDr foospu ls ;g Hkyh Hkkafr fl) gS fd Jh /kksyj mQZ N=iky mIkk/;k; xzke lwroku tksr rIik cf[kjk ijxuk exgj iwjc] rglhy [kyhykckn ftyk cLrh }kjk ckcwyky mQZ gjhjke dks fnukad 24 Qjojh 1950 bZŒ dks jftLVMZ xksnukek fy;k x;k gSA oknh }kjk xksnukek fujLr ugh djk;k x;k gSA ftlds vk/kkj ij oknh jftLVZM xksnukek fy;k x;k gSA oknh }kjk xksnukek fujLr ugh djk;k x;k gSA ftlds vk/kkj ij oknh dk okn iks"k.kh; ugh gSA vr% oknh nkok fujLr fd;k tkrk gSaA ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky nrj gksA v;ks/;k izlkn mi ftykf/kdkjh lnj xksj[kiqjA^^ 10. The perusal of the judgment fully demonstrate that neither issues have been framed nor opportunity to lead evidences was given to the parties and the regular suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been dismissed, which is against the settled principle of law. This court in the case of Babu Ram (supra) has held as under in paragraph nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6:- "2. The manner in which the suit instituted by the respondent no.1 under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R.Act has been decided by the impugned order dated 28.01.2019 cannot be appreciated. The trial court has neither framed issues nor has provided any opportunity of leading evidence to the parties to prove their respective cases. The provisions contained in Code of Civil Procedure has been given a go bye. 3. As already observed above by the Court in its order dated 21.02.2019, the proceedings under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A & L.R Act are regular proceedings where declaration of rights in a holding is decided on the basis of evidence. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has also not been able to defend the impugned order; rather he appears to agree that the matter ought to have been remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malihabad, Lucknow in Computerized Case No.T201810460101621; Mahavir vs Babu and others, under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A & L.R.Act, as is contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law and also by following the procedure as prescribed under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall expedite the proceedings of the suit and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order." 11. This court in the case reported in AIR 1983 Allahabad 450 Smt. Kaniz Fatima and another Vs. Shah Naim Ashraf has held that if no issue has been framed on a question which arises out of the pleading of the parties, the Court cannot proceed to record a finding on that point. The paragraph nos. 19 & 20 of the judgment are relevant, which are as under:- "19. Shah Naim Ashraf has held that if no issue has been framed on a question which arises out of the pleading of the parties, the Court cannot proceed to record a finding on that point. The paragraph nos. 19 & 20 of the judgment are relevant, which are as under:- "19. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid decision but the true scope of the said rule would be that where the parties have led their entire evidence on all the pleas raised by them, they cannot be permitted to urge at the conclusion of the proceedings or in appeal that they were taken by surprise by non-framing of an issue on that particular point on which they have already exhausted their evidence. In such a case it cannot be said that the parties are prejudiced in any manner whatsoever by non-framing of an issue. But the said rule cannot be construed to cover those cases as well where the evidence was led on issues on which the parties actually went, to trial because it is well settled that the evidence adduced on any particular issue by the parties cannot be made foundation for decision of any other and different plea on which no issue has been framed, because in the absence of an issue on the point they cannot be said to have an opportunity of adducing evidence in support of it or in rebuttal of it. It cannot be assumed that the parties have exhaustively led evidence on all the pleas raised in the pleadings. A party is supposed to lead evidence only on the issues framed in the suit. The other party can object and the Court can always refuse to record evidence which does not relate to the issues framed in the suit. Even if evidence has been led and brought on record, the court will not be justified to look into that evidence for deciding a point not covered by the issues. Thus, it cannot be said that it the parties had led evidence in the case it should be construed to cover all the pleas raised in the pleadings although no issue has been framed on that point. 20. Thus, it cannot be said that it the parties had led evidence in the case it should be construed to cover all the pleas raised in the pleadings although no issue has been framed on that point. 20. The object of framing the issue is to direct that attention of the parties to lead evidence on that specific issue frame and if no evidence is led (one line obliterated. Ed.) drawn against the concerned parties for holding that it has no evidence to support or to rebut the plea covered by the issue in question. But in the absence of the proper issues covering all the pleas raised in pleadings it cannot be said that the parties have exhausted all their evidence or all the pleas raised by them although the same are not covered by the issues framed. In the view of the matter, we find that in the present case since proper issues have not been framed, which arise out of the pleadings of the parties as well as in the statement of the case recorded under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code, it cannot be said that the defendants have led all their evidence which they would have led in support of the pleas, which are not covered by the issued framed in the suit. The decision recorded by court below, therefore, cannot be sustained on the said ground urged by learned counsel of the plaintiff. The case, therefore, deserves to be remanded to the trial court for decision afresh after framing proper additional issues in the suit and giving full opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence which they may like to produce in support of their case. Learned court below will carefully scrutinize pleadings and frame necessary additional issues." 12. Every objection which the respondents are raising before this Court that can be decided after framing of issues by trial court and permitting the parties to lead evidence on the issue as such unless the matter is remanded back to the trial court after setting aside the judgment of the court below to frame issues and decide the matter, the objection of the respondents cannot be answered. 13. Considering the ratio of law laid down in Babu Ram (supra) as well as Smt. Kaniz Fatima (supra) the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by respondent no. 1, judgment dated 30.10.2012 passed by respondent no. 13. Considering the ratio of law laid down in Babu Ram (supra) as well as Smt. Kaniz Fatima (supra) the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by respondent no. 1, judgment dated 30.10.2012 passed by respondent no. 2 and 16.11.2007 passed by respondent no. 3 are liable to set aside and are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back before the trial court-respondent no. 3 to restore the suit on its original number for fresh decision after framing the issues and giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The trial court shall decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment. 14. Since this Court has granted interim protection vide order dated 01.10.2021, hence in order to protect the property in dispute during pendency of suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the interest of justice requires that parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the property in dispute. Accordingly, it is directed that parties shall maintain status quo with respect to nature and possession of the property in dispute till the disposal of the suit as mentioned above. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.