Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.P. SINGH, J.
Udho Singh - Appellant
Versus
District Dy. Director Of Consolidation - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17156 of 1986
Decided on : Nov 16, 1987
U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - Section 9 - Compromise - Validity - Burden of Proof - Signature - Forgery - Irregularity - Interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the compromise reached during consolidation proceedings under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, claiming that he was entitled to a larger share in the disputed Khata and that the compromise was invalid due to various reasons, including the absence of his signature, the burden of proof being placed on the wrong party, the compromise not being written by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, and the compromise giving him a lesser share than he was entitled to.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the signature on the compromise was not his, and that the burden of proof was correctly placed on him to prove the forgery. The court also held that the compromise was not invalid merely because it was not written by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, as this was only an irregularity and not an illegality. Furthermore, the court held that the petitioner could not challenge the compromise on the ground that he received a lesser share than he was entitled to, as he had agreed to the terms of the compromise.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had discharged the burden of proof to establish that the signature on the compromise was not his. 2. Whether the burden of proof was correctly placed on the petitioner to prove the forgery of the signature. 3. Whether the compromise was invalid because it was not written by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 4. Whether the petitioner could challenge the compromise on the ground that he received a lesser share than he was entitled to.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the signature on the compromise was not his, and that the burden of proof was correctly placed on him to prove the forgery. The court reasoned that there is a presumption about the correctness of the record of a Court, and that if a party challenges the correctness of the record, it is for that party to prove its allegations. 2. The court held that the compromise was not invalid merely because it was not written by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, as this was only an irregularity and not an illegality. The court reasoned that Rule 25-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not require the Assistant Consolidation Officer to record the terms of the compromise in his own hand, and that even if he did not do so, it would not be such an irregularity as to warrant interference with the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer accepting the terms of the compromise. 3. The court held that the petitioner could not challenge the compromise on the ground that he received a lesser share than he was entitled to, as he had agreed to the terms of the compromise. The court reasoned that in a compromise, giving and taking by the contesting parties is always involved, and that once a party willingly gives to the other party and the compromise is accepted by a Court, it would not be proper for the court to interfere with the order passed by the Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's objections to the compromise were not weighty enough to warrant interference with the orders passed by the consolidation authorities.
K. P. Singh, J.
1. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
2. The dispute between the parties is about the share in the disputed Khata. The petitioner claims 3/4th share in the disputed Khata whereas he has been given 1/2 share by the consolidation authorities on the basis of a compromise between the contesting parties. Aggrieved by the judgments of the consolidation authorities the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner claims 3/4th share in the disputed Khata on the basis of the following pedigree :- Bir Bux Samser Hanuman Hawaldar Udho Hari Shankar
According to the petitioner the share of Hanuman in the above pedigree would devolve upon him, therefore, he would be entitled to 3/4th share.
3. It has been stressed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the compromise relied upon by the consolidation authorities is no compromise in the eye of law because it did not bear the signatures of the petitioner.
4. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the facts and circumstances of the present case burden has been placed on wrong shoulders. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was necessary for the contesting opposite party to have proved the genuineness of the compromise. The bare denial on the part of the petitioner was enough to discard the compromise.
The third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that the compromise was not written by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in his own hand, therefore, the compromise was illegal and could not be acted upon.
5. Fourthly, it has been contended that the compromise gives lesser share to the petitioner than he is entitled to in the eye of law, therefore, the compromise should have been ignored and the claims of the parties should have been decided strictly in accordance with the legal share.
6. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and I think that none of the contentions have force. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the burden was upon the petitioner to prove that the alleged signature on the compromise was really not the signature of the petitioner. The bare denial by the petitioner would not be sufficient in eye of law to discharge the burden. There is a presumption about the correctness of the record of a Court. If a party challenges the correctness of the record it was for that party to prove its allegations. If the signature of the petitioner on the compromise was really not the signature of the petitioner the admitted signature of the petitioner should have been compared with the alleged signature on the compromise and expert should have been examined on behalf of the petitioner to prove that the alleged signature on the compromise was really not his signature. I think that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the burden was placed on wrong shoulder is wholly misconceived and ill-founded.
Since the compromise bears the signature of the petitioner and it has not been proved that the signature is a forged one or is not the signature of the petitioner, I think that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compromise cannot be termed as illegal because it did not bear the signature of the petitioner. Rather, it is evident that the compromise did bear the signature of the petitioner which has not been established as forged or fabricated signature of the petitioner.
7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner has got lesser share than he is entitled to in law, it is sufficient to observe that if the parties agree to a lesser share he cannot be permitted to ignore the agreement which has been accepted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It was open to the petitioner not to have agreed to the lesser share but once he agreed, he cannot be permitted to
AI
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
