Restitution and title-based possession: court treated the right as arising only after final adjudication and allowed inherent powers relief.

Restitution was treated as becoming enforceable only when the respondents' title was finally declared in their favour, not merely on setting aside the ex parte decree. Because the land was under attachment and in custodia legis, possession could not be restored earlier, and the applications filed after final adjudication were held within limitation. The Court also stated that Section 144 CPC is not exhaustive and that restitution may be granted under Section 151 CPC where necessary. On the land-reform issues, the respondents were not barred for not filing a suit under Section 209, and the appellants did not acquire sirdari rights under Section 210.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applications for restitution were maintainable and within limitation, and whether restitution could be granted only after the declaratory suit was finally decided in favour of the respondents. (ii) Whether respondents 7 to 10 were barred for not filing a suit under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and whether the appellants acquired sirdari rights under Section 210 of that Act.

Issue (i): Whether the applications for restitution were maintainable and within limitation, and whether restitution could be granted only after the declaratory suit was finally decided in favour of the respondents.

Analysis: The right to restitution was held to arise not merely on the setting aside of the ex parte decree, but when a declaration contrary to the ex parte decree was ultimately made in favour of the respondents. Since the land was under attachment and in custodia legis, the respondents could not seek possession merely on the reversal of the ex parte decree; their entitlement to restitution matured only after the suit was finally decided against the appellants. The Court also held that Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not exhaustive and that restitution could equally be granted under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applications made after the final adjudication were therefore within time.

Conclusion: The restitution applications were maintainable and not time-barred, and relief could validly be granted under Section 144 or, in the alternative, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (ii): Whether respondents 7 to 10 were barred for not filing a suit under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and whether the appellants acquired sirdari rights under Section 210 of that Act.

Analysis: The Court held that the respondents' rights had not extinguished when the consolidation notification was issued, because they were impleaded in the declaratory suit before limitation could expire and their claim to restitution arose after they became parties and after the suit was finally decided. Possession of the appellants after the respondents were impleaded could not be tacked on to earlier possession for purposes of acquiring sirdari rights. The Court further held that the pendency of the declaratory suit and the consolidation proceedings prevented the appellants from establishing any perfected title based on possession. On these facts, the respondents were entitled to succeed in the suit and to obtain restitution.

Conclusion: The respondents were not barred by failure to file a suit under Section 209, and the appellants did not acquire sirdari rights under Section 210.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in all material respects, and the judgment allowing the writ petition and denying the appellants' claim to title or possession was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Restitution may be granted under the inherent powers of the court where Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure is inapplicable, and the right to restitution arises only when the party seeking it becomes entitled to possession on the final adjudication of title.

---