Back
2010 Supreme(All) 3982
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vikram Nath, J.
Ganga Prasad -Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others -Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2518 of 1974
Decided On : 11-11-2010
B.P.Singh, S.N.Singh, P.N.Tripathi, Ajeet Kumar Singh, A.K.Singh, R.N.Singh
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of inheritance rights and the applicability of the compromise of 1946 in determining succession of estate.
Headnote:
certiorari - Land Dispute - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9, Section 12 - The court discussed the dispute related to ancestral land and the succession of estate. The key legal provisions discussed were Section 9 and Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the inheritance rights and the application of the compromise of 1946.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over ancestral land and the succession of estate. The court analyzed the pedigree of the parties and the claims of inheritance. The court found that the respondent was the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas and had inheritance rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas and had inheritance rights. The court also held that the compromise of 1946 was not binding on the respondent as he was not a party to it. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent had inheritance rights to the estate of Pragas. Other issues included the applicability of the compromise of 1946 and the admissibility of evidence from previous litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the respondent was the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas and had inheritance rights. The court also ruled that the compromise of 1946 was not binding on the respondent as he was not a party to it.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the respondent had inheritance rights and that the compromise of 1946 was not binding on the respondent.
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 7th January, 1974, 23rd April, 1971 and 22nd January, 1971 passed by all the three consolidation courts i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 3 respectively.
2. Dispute relates to khata nos. 63, 63A and 63 B of village Banwadih, Pargana, Angoli, District Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute). In the basic year khata no.63 was recorded in the name of Ram Iqbal and others (some of the respondents), khata no.63A was recorded in the name of Sarjoo and Dev Saran, respondent nos.18 and 19 and khata 63 B was recorded in the name of Indrabali and purchasers of the share of Ram Narain, Sheo Mahal and Achhaiber. The land in dispute is admittedly ancestral. For the purpose of this case, the dispute is between the heirs of Fakir and as to who will succeed to his estate. The pedigree as given in the petition is as follows :-
Faqir
Kalika Pragas
Mst. Bunaoo (widow) (daughters)
Mrs. Subicha (widow).
Parbati Diljhari Nanjhari Lachi
Lakhapatti
Dilraji
Abhiraji
Gujrati
Kamta
Sanjhari
(daugher)
Ram Naresh
Ram Biwas
Ram Charitra
Ram Iqbal
Rati Pal
Chatra Pal
Raghu Nath
Indersen (son)
Ganga Prasad
Januna Gomti
Ram Bhilakh
Ram Deo
Harpal
Harsnarain
Bijai Bahadur
3. Fakir had two sons Kalika and Pragas. Mst. Bunao was wife of Kalika. They had four daughters. On the other side Smt. Subicha was the wife of Pragas and they also had four daughters. Petitioner no.1 Ganga Prasad is the grand son of Smt. Gujrati one of the four daughters born out of the wedlock of Kalika and Smt. Bunaoo. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the grand son of Smt. Parbati one of the four daughters of Pragas and Smt. Subicha. Petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are the purchaser from petitioner nos.1 to 3. Respondent 4/Indersen is the grand son of Smt. Lachi one of the four daughters of Pragas and Smt. Subicha. Objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer under section 9 as also under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One set of application has been filed by petitioner nos. 4 and 5 for recording their names with regard to the land covered by sale deed executed by petitioner nos.1 to 3. Petitioner nos.1 to 3 filed a separate set of objections claiming that they were the sole bhumidhar of 1/3 share of the khatas in dispute and Indersen/respondent no.4 had no title or interest therein and that he had been wrongly transferring the land of the khata in dispute. Indersen/respondent no.4 contested the objections and claimed that he was sole bhumidhar to the extent of 1/3 share in the khata in dispute and that the petitioners had no right, title or interest. The Consolidation Officer framed seven issues and vide judgement dated 22nd January, 1971 directed that khata no.63 will be recorded in the names of 13 persons as per the share mentioned against their names which included the petitioners and respondents both, with regard to khata nos. 63-A and 63-B he directed that they would be partitioned in equal shares between the parties.
4. Five appeals were filed against the judgement of the Consolidation Officer. All the appeals were consolidated and decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide judgement dated 23rd April, 1971 whereby he dismissed all the five appeals holding that there was no infirmity in the order of the Consolidation Officer. Five revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation consolidated all the five revisions and vide judgement dated 7.1.1974 dismissed the 3 revisions filed by Jhumak Singh and others, Ganga Prasad Singh and Ram Iqbal and others. The revision filed by Sheo Bahadur Singh was partly allowed and he was declared owner of 0.09 acres in the disputed khatas and lastly the revision filed by Banke Behari was allowed and he was declared Asami of 1/3 share of the disputed khata. It is against these orders of the Consolidation Cour
