Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 921
[Citation : RLW 2010(1) RJ 49 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Amrit Lal & Ors. Vs. Maharani & Ors. (Sinha, J.)
HON'BLE S.B. SINHA, J.
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
Amrit Lal & Ors.
Versus
Maharani & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 4585 of 2009, decided on 21.07.2009
Dilip Pandey, S.K. Kaushik, R.C. Kaushik, for Appellants;
Shrish Kumar Misra, for Respondents
Headnote:U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 read with Oudh Rent Act, 1886 — Whether a purported patta granted in favour of the appellant's predecessor could ensure to the benefit of the joint family or not — Held — Property enured to the joint family — It was for the claimant to establish that the joint family disrupted prior to the alleged grant of patta but there was no pleading in that regard — If for purpose of Collection of revenue or otherwise, name of one of them was entered in the revenue records, the same would not mean that the property vested in him irrespective of the share of the co-owners — There exists a presumption with regard to continuance of joint family. (Paras 15 & 16)
mRrj izns'k tehankjh mUewyu Hkwfe lq/kkj vf/kfu;e] 1951] lifBr vo/k fdjk;k vf/kfu;e] 1886 & D;k vihykFkhZ ds iwoZt ds i{k esa iznku fd;k rkRif;Zr iV~Vk la;qDr ifjokj ds fgr dks lqfuf'pr dj ldrk gS ;k ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & lEifr la;qDr ifjokj dks izo`r dh & ;g nkok drkZ dks LFkkfir djuk Fkk fd dfFkr iV~Vk iznku djus ls iwoZ la;qDr ifjokj foHkkftr Fkk ysfdu bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ vfHkokd~ ugha Fkk & ;fn jktLo ladyu ds iz;kstukFkZ ;k vU;Fkk muesa ls fdlh ,d dk uke jktLo vfHkys[k esa ntZ dj fn;k x;k Fkk rks bldk vFkZ ;g ugha gksxk fd lg-Lokfe;ksa ds va'k ds gksrs gq, Hkh lEifRr mlesa fufgr Fkh & la;qDr ifjokj dh fujUrjrk ds lEcU/k esa mi/kkj.kk fo|eku gSA
vihy [kkfjt dhA ¼in la[;k 15 o 16½
2. The core question involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 15th November 2006 passed by a learned single judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 8555 of 1987, is as to whether a purported patta granted in favour of the appellant’s predecessor herein could enure to the benefit of the joint family or not.
3. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the family was governed by the Mitakshra School of Hindu Law.
One Baldi was the original owner of the property. He left behind two sons, namely, Shankar and Ragghu. After his death, the name of Shankar was recorded in revenue records. Ragghu died leaving behind his widow Smt. Sukhraja.
4. An objection was filed by Sukhraja under Section 9(A)(2) of the Consolidation of Holding Act before the Consolidation Officer, which was allowed by reason of order dated 22nd January, 1971, holding:
“Therefore, on the basis of the evidence available on record, Ragghu was the son of late Baldi and real brother of Shankar. It is proved that disputed property is the ancestral property since the lifetime of Baldi and after the demise of Ragghu, possession of Sukhraja, widow of Ragghu is also proved.
Accordingly, issues are decided.
Therefore, it is ordered that name of Sukhraja, widow of Ragghu is recorded as cokhatedar in Khata No. 908 and name of Umrao, Mata Badal, Ram Dulare, son of Shankar were recorded in place of deceased Shankar. Name of Hira Lal, son of Bharose be deleted from Gata No. 3961/3/53-0. Area be recorded by AP. Partition of the numberan within the consolidation be recorded as under:
1. Sukhraja, widow of Ragghu ½ portion
2. Umrao, S/o Shankar 1/6 share
3. Mata Badal, S/o Shankar 1/6th share
4. Ram Dulare, S/o Shankar, 1/6th share”
5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22nd January, 1971, Umrao, Mata Badal and Ram Dulare filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Rai Bareli on 12th February, 1971, which was allowed by him by its judgment and order dated 26th October, 1971, holding:
“It was the duty of the appellant to prove beyond doubt that either the land was inherited by Shankar from Baldi or alternatively he was to prove that the land was acquired by Shankar in a representative capacity. The appellants have failed to prove that Shankar’s name was recorded in the papers as heir to Baldi because if the Land was inherited not only Shankar but Ragghu’s name should also be recorded. Alternatively he was to prove that the Land was acquired by Shankar out of the common funds of joint Hindu Family. But no Nazarana etc. was to be charged by the Zamindar and therefore, the plea is also untenable, according to Sheetal witness Shankar acquired the property in the Lifetime of his father Baldi. The recorded tenure holder has however stated on oath that the pedigree is wrong but the pedigree has been proved beyond doubt and there is no parallel pedigree to prove that the pedigree produced by the appellants is wrong. In the circumstances I am of the view that the pedigree is correct.
Smt. Shukharana (sic Sukhraja) herself says that the lease deed was executed in favour of Shankar, in the circumstances it cannot be legally presumed that the land was acquired by Shankar in a representative capacity or that the land was ancestral. The Consolidation Officer has, therefore, decreed the claims of Srimati Sukharana (sic Sukhraja) against the facts on file. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the order of the Consolidation Officer is set aside and it is hereby ordered that after expunction of the name of Shankar deceased, names of Umrao, Mata Badal and Ram Dulare sons of Shankar shall remain recorded on Khata No. 908 of village Kandrawan with equal shares. Name of Srimati Sukharana (sic Sukhraja) of Ragghu shall not be recorded in any capacity. Her claim is hereby dismissed.”
6. Revision filed thereagainst by Sukhraja was dismissed
