Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
Farooqi Begum (D) by Lrs. - Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1534 of 2009
Decided On : 12-07-2022
Property Law – Resumption of grant – Suit for declaration, possession and damages – First thing required to be proved by plaintiff-respondent was that there was resumption of grant given in favour of appellant – For said purpose, neither any such order resuming earlier grant was filed, nor any order of revenue court was filed to show that resumption of grant had been incorporated in revenue records – Muafiat Register was a document not free from suspicion and as such, no reliance could be placed upon it – No other evidence was led by plaintiff-respondent to prove resumption – There was no evidence to prove resumption of grant – Finding recorded by a Class-I Officer of State could not be easily ignored – Correction of record proceedings is summary in nature, but when inspection was carried out, such finding recorded in order regarding possession ought not to have been ignored – Plaintiff-respondent led no evidence to establish that it was throughout in possession since 1930 after resumption – Defendant-appellants had filed not only documentary evidence to prove their continuous possession but also oral evidence which has been ignored – Judgment of High Court impugned set aside and matter remitted back to High Court. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has assailed the correctness of Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2006 passed by the Single Judge, Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 813 of 1975 between Farooqi Begum vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, whereby Second Appeal was dismissed giving rise to present appeal. Suit of the respondent instituted for relief of declaration, possession and mesne profits was based on the averments that grant given by Nawab Hamid Ali Khan in 1924 in favour of the appellant, had been resumed by his successor, Nawab Raza Ali Khan in year 1930, thereafter, the respondent had entered into possession, the records were corrected, however, the appellant on account of some omission in the maintenance of the records, re-entered into possession sometimes in 1959 and, therefore, they were compelled to file a suit. It is also stated that the respondent made an attempt to get the records corrected through the revenue court by way of an application for correction of revenue records, but the same was rejected by the Deputy Collector in 1953.
Findings of Court:
High Court fell in error in not taking into consideration the relevant material and instead relying upon inadmissible evidence or evidence which had no bearing to the findings. Even the burden had been wrongly placed on the defendant-appellant.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Nath, J.
Appellant has assailed the correctness of Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2006 passed by the Single Judge, Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 813 of 1975 between Farooqi Begum vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, whereby the Second Appeal was dismissed giving rise to the present appeal.
FACTS
2. The State of U.P. through Collector, Rampur, instituted a suit for declaration, possession and damages before the Court of District Judge, Rampur, registered as Original Suit No.1 of 1964, State of U.P. vs. Smt. Farooqi Begum with respect to land in suit measuring 20 bighas 10 biswa (pukhta) situated in Village Thotar, Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur, that it was a government grove (known as ‘Bagh Hazoor Pasand’) and presently belonging to the U.P. State Garden Department, Rampur.
3. According to the plaint averments, the said grove was rent free grant of the defendant long before the merger of Rampur State and like other Muafis; it was granted by His Highness Nawab Hamid Ali Khan to his different wives and was liable to resumption at the pleasure of the ruler of erstwhile Rampur State; after the death of Nawab Hamid Ali Khan in 1930, his successor Nawab Raza Ali Khan resumed all the Muafis of all the widows of his father including that of the defendant; the possession of the same was taken over by the State Authorities soon after the resumption; the same was given effect to in the revenue papers and the grove concerned came to be recorded in the name of the State (Shamil Khalasa); the defendant and her Karpoons through collusion of the revenue officers managed to get her name continued in the Patwari’s record even though her possession had been removed; the grove in question along with similarly resumed grove came into the hands of the State of U.P. at the time of merger; ever since the State has been selling its Bahar; the defendant on the basis of continuance of her name, though illegally, continued to interfere in the possession of the State even in 1959 claiming the grove in question in her ownership; the State of U.P. took legal steps to get the revenue records corrected by expunging the name of the defendant and for incorporating the name of the State but the revenue court declined such request of the State as such the necessity to file the suit arose.
4. Smt. Farooqi Begum, the sole defendant, filed the written statement denying the plaint allegations except that the proceedings before the revenue courts culminated in her favour; it was further alleged that the defendant had been in continuous possession since 1924; the property in suit was the holding of the defendant on the commencement of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952 and as such on the commencement of the Act, the defendant became the ‘Bhumidhar’ thereof; that in proceedings for ejectment against one Laddan Khan initiated by the defendant, the State being a party had acquiesced to the defendant’s title as such the suit was barred by estoppel; further that the Bagh Hazoor Pasand was in possession of defendant and was her own property and adjoining grove measuring 13 bighas 2 biswas was the grove of the plaintiff State and was in its possession; both these groves are separated by a Nala (a drain); the plaintiff had filed a suit on a wrong advice that the grove in question was resumed; other formal pleas of defence were also taken in the written statement.
5. The Trial Court proceeded to frame issues on the basis of pleadings and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,1[In short “CPC”] for amendment in the written statement on 01.11.1965. The Trial Court vide judgment dated 13.11.1966 decreed the suit and at the same time rejected the amendment application on the ground that it had been filed at a very belated stage after the arguments had been heard. Against the said judgment dated 13.11.1966, the defendant preferred an appeal which was orig
Resumption of grant must be proved by credible documentary evidence. Finding recorded by a Class-I Officer of State could not be easily ignored.
Possession established through continuous use despite challenges from opposing parties upholds rights against forcible dispossession.
Adverse Possession – State cannot claim adverse possession over property of its own citizens – Allowing State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine constitutional....
The validity of a gift deed under Mohammedan Law requires constructive delivery of possession, and adverse possession cannot be claimed if the possession is permissive.
Civil Law - Recovery of khas possession - It is a settled law that entry of names in records of right does not vest any ownership over the said land and is only indicative about the possession over s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
