JUDGMENT :- Second Appeal No. 234 of 1963 and Second Appeal No. 275 of 1963 both arise out of the same judgment and decree passed by the Munsif Barabanki in Suit No. 57 of 1961 which decree was also confirmed by the Civil Judge, Barabanki. The brief facts of the case were that one Badri was a Sirdar of certain plots under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Gur Prasad defendant, who died during the pendency of these appeals and is now represented by his brother Gaya Prasad, filed a suit in the Revenue Court under Section 209 of the Act against Badri alleging that this holding was his own Sirdari holding on which Badri had entered in wrongful possession. He prayed for possession over this holding after the ejectment of Badri. In the suit a compromise dated 31-1-1959 was filed by Badri and Gur Prasad in which it was admitted that the holding belonged to Gur Prasad in which Badri had no interest and it was further stated that Badri had also restored possession over it to Gur Prasad. The court on the same day recorded this compromise and passed a decree in terms of it. Thereafter Gur Prasad remained m possession of this holding and his name was also recorded in the revenue records as its Sirdar. Badri died in March, 1960 leaving his sister Smt. Chauhana as his heir. Smt. Chauhana then filed the suit out of which these appeals have arisen in the court of Munsif Barabanki on 3-4-1961 alleging that the holding actually belonged to Badri who was an old man of 80 years of age at the time of his death and that the compromise decree in that suit was the result of fraud and collusion which is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for the cancellation of that decree, for a declaration that she was the Sirdar of this holding and for delivery of possession over it in case she was found to be out of possession. In this suit besides Gur Prasad, Gram Sabha Bairana Mau and the State Government of Uttar Pradesh were also impleaded as pro forma defendants.

2. The suit was contested by Gur Prasad on a number of grounds. He denied that there was any collusion between him and Badri in obtaining that compromise decree. He contended that he himself was the Sirdar of this land and that this compromise decree was rightly passed which in any case was binding on Badri and his legal representative and it is not liable to be set aside at the instance of the plaintiff. Some other pleas were also taken which it is not necessary to mention for the purposes of the decision of these appeals.

3. Both the courts below found that the compromise decree was a collusive decree and it was a colourable device on the part of Badri to transfer his holding to Gur Prasad which he could not otherwise transfer under the provisions of the Act. As such this decree was liable to be set aside at the instance of the plaintiff Smt. Chauhana who claimed herself to be the heir of Badri, but at the same time the plaintiff could not be declared to be the Sirdar of this land because as soon as Badri transferred this holding to Gur Prasad under the colour of this compromise decree, Badri's interest in this holding was extinguished under Section 190 (cc) of the Act. As Badri was not left with any interest in this holding at the time of his death, no interest could be acquired by the plaintiff as his heir. The trial court, therefore, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for cancellation of the prior compromise decree but disallowed any other relief to the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by this decree Smt. Chauhana and Gur Prasad both filed their appeals which were dismissed by the Civil Judge, Barabanki. After that Gur Prasad filed Second Appeal No. 234 of 1963 and Smt. Chauhana filed Second Appeal No. 275 of 1963. On the death of Gur Prasad his brother Gaya Prasad was substituted in his place as his heir.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the parties in both these appeals. The first question t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document