The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Board of Revenue could not entertain the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law, as required by Section 331(4) of the Act.

ORDER

C.A. NO. 7066/2010

Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant(s) states that the consolidation proceedings have commenced in the village Amirpur Garhi and therefore the proceedings giving rise to the present appeal stand abated as per Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly.

C.A. No. 7067/2010

1. The only issue raised by Shri Jitendra Mohan Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) is the legality and propriety of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 16.09.1990, setting aside the orders of the authorities below and remanding the dispute between the parties for fresh decision to the Trial Court for decision under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, "the Act").

2. We are not narrating all the facts in the dispute since it is not necessary to do so in view of the order that we propose to pass. Suffice it to say that there is a dispute between the parties as to the inheritance and succession to the property of one Pirthi who died leaving behind his son Indraj who also died leaving behind his widow Kelawati. Upon Kelawati's death the property as claimed by the grand sons of Pirthi i.e., Ram Prasad and his son Ram Mehar who cliamed that upon Kelawati's death the property reverted back to the brothers of Pirthi. However, since the brother, namely, Tirkha and his son Pyarelal and other brother Ram Prasad, i.e, father of Ram Mehar had pre-deceased Kelawati, he was the only heir.

3. The Board of Revenue held that Ram Meher was entitled to succession of such property. However, on a Second Appeal being carried to the Board of Revenue by the sons Mahavir and Virender Singh grand sons of pre-deceased brother of Pirthi, the Board of Revenue set aside the orders and held that it was necessary for the Trial Court to enquire into the question of rights of sons of the sister of Indraj who was the pre-deceased son of Pirthi.

4. Shri Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant(s) submitted that it is not necessary to examine whether the remand order was justified on merits or not. According to the learned counsel, the Board of Revenue was bound in terms of section 331(4)of the Act to assume jurisdiction in the Second Appeal only if a substantial question of law arise. Section 331 (4) of the Act reads as under :

"A second appeal shall lie on any of the ground specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under sub-Section (3), to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 6 of the Schedule aforesaid."

5. It is a settled law vide decisions of this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Diler Singh (2016) 3 SCC 71 and Raghavendra Swamy Mutt vs. Uttaradi Mutt, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 235 that second appeal can be entertained only if a substantial question of law arise in the matter. It is clear that the Board of Revenue could not have entertained the second appeal at all without framing a substantial question of law.

6. We, accordingly, set aside the order of Board of Revenue and remand the matter back to the Board of Revenue for consideration of the Second Appeal in accordance with law after framing substantial question of law, if any.

7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.