Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Khattoo and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors. - Respondent
Writ-B No. 68541 of 2014
Decided On : 13-03-2015
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Dispute over share in plot 424 - Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 - Sale deeds and family settlement determining share - Admissibility of evidence from abated suit
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a claim over the share in plot 424 of a village. The petitioners contested the objections and claimed exclusive possession based on sale deeds and family settlement. The consolidation authorities held that the respondent was still entitled to a 1/4 share in the plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence from the abated suit, including the compromise containing admissions by the petitioners, was admissible and could be relied upon. The court also held that the petitioners' argument of adverse possession was irrelevant as the respondent had remained a co-sharer throughout.
Issues: The main issues were the determination of the respondent's share in the plot, the admissibility of evidence from the abated suit, and the relevance of adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissibility of evidence from the abated suit, including the compromise containing admissions by the petitioners, and the principle that possession of one co-sharer can be treated as possession on behalf of all.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Heard Sri K.N. Rai, for the petitioners and Sri J.P. Sharma, for the contesting respondent-4. The writ petition has been filed against orders of Consolidation Officer dated 3.3.2010, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 11.8.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.10.2014 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of share in plot 424 (area 0.73 acre) of village Kotawa, pargana Jalhupur, district Varanasi. In basic consolidation year, land in dispute was recorded in two khats 34 and 347. Khata 34 (consisting plot 424, area 0.385 acre) was recorded in the name of Khattoo son of Hazari (petitioner-1) and khata 347 (consisting plot 424, area 0.345 acre) was recorded in the name of Hazari son of Gullu (now represented by the petitioners). Dashrath alias Dashmi (respondent-4) filed two separate objections, in aforesaid khatas, claiming his 1/4 share in plot 424 (area 0.73 acre). It has been stated by respondent-4 that his father was having 1/4 share in the land in dispute and remaining 3/4 share belonged to Ram Sewak son of Santoo, Bechan, Gaya sons of Babua, residents of village Deenapur and Manni Lal, Hari Lal and Jawahir Lal sons of Raghunandan residents of village Khalispur, from whom Khattoo and Hazari have obtained the sale deeds. However, the name of respondent-4 has been illegally deleted from the land in dispute, in the mutation proceeding.
3. Hazari and Khattoo contested the objections and filed their separate written statement/counter-objection. They have stated that area of plot 424 was 0.73 acre. In family settlement, Charandasi son of Deo Nandan (father of respondent-4) was given 0.065 acre, which was sold by him to Khatto (petitioner-1) through sale-deed dated 3.7.1971. On the basis of this sale-deed name of Khattoo was mutated and name of Charandasi was deleted from the land in dispute. Remaining area of this plot came in the shares of Munni Lal, son of Raghunandan, Ram Lal, Bhola sons of Jawahir, Shitla son of Hari Lal alias Bihari, Kunnar alias Kunnur son of Sewak, Bechan son of Babuwa, Tara, Vishwanath, Baijnath sons of Gaya, Ma-hadeo son of Jittu, Kallu, Dallu, Siri, Bachau, Ramji sons of Sunnar. Munni Lal, son of Raghunandan, Ram Lal, Bhola sons of Jawahir, Shitla son of Hari Lal alias Bihari executed a sale-deed dated 28.2.1968 in respect of an area of 0.1825 acre of plot 424 in favour of Khattoo, whose name was mutated in revenue record on its basis. Kunnar alias Kunnur son of Sewak, Bechan son of Babuwa, Tara, Vishwanath, Baijnath sons of Gaya, Mahadeo son of Jittu, Kallu, Dallu, Siri, Bachau, Ramji sons of Sunnar executed a sale-deed dated 24.7.1974, in respect of an area of 0.15-5/6 acre of plot 424 in favour of Khattoo, whose name was mutated in revenue record on its basis. Land purchased by Khattoo came to be recorded in basic consolidation year khata 34. Kunnar alias Kunnur son of Sewak, Bechan son of Babuwa, Tara, Vishwanath, Baijnath sons of Gaya, Mahadeo son of Jittu, Kallu, Dallu, Siri, Bachau, Ramji sons of Sunnar executed a sale-deed dated 24.7.1974, in respect of an area of 0.345 acre of plot 424 in favour of Hazari, whose name was mutated in revenue record on its basis and this land was recorded in basic consolidation year khata 347. Respondent-4 has no share in it. Charandasi has filed a suit under section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, on false allegations, claiming his 1/4 share in the land in dispute, which was abated at the stage of second appeal. From the date of sale-deed, the petitioners have been in exclusive possession over the land in dispute, their possession was also found during partal, in consolidation over entire area of the land in dispute, claim if any of respondent-4 has barred by limitation, estoppel and acquiescence.
4. Both the cases were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer. Respondent-4, apart fro
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
