Back
2017 Supreme(All) 1605
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Birendra Kumar and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue and Ors. - Respondent
Writ-B No. 34781 of 2014
Decided On : 05-07-2017
For the Appellant : Tarun Agrawal, Mohit Kumar Shukla, Ravi Kant, Satendra Kumar Singh and Suresh Chandra Varma.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Anuj Kumar, Shiv Babu Dubey and Tripathi B.G. Bhai.
The burden of proof in establishing ownership under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act lies with the claimant, and revenue entries can serve as sufficient evidence of title. Additionally, the court clarified that oral testimony may not always be necessary to prove a case.
Headnote:
Zamindari Abolition - Survivorship - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 229-B
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the ownership of land under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff claimed title by survivorship under Section 175, while the defendants claimed ownership under Section 171(m). The courts below accepted the plaintiff's case, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's title as a co-tenant with Shiv Sampat was established by the revenue entry in her favor, and the burden of proving the defendants' claim rested on them. The court also held that the oral testimony of the plaintiff was not necessary to prove her case of survivorship.
Issues: The main issues were the ownership of the disputed land under different sections of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the burden of proof, and the admissibility of oral testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lay with the defendants to establish their claim under Section 171(m), and the plaintiff's case of survivorship was sufficiently proved by the revenue entry in her favor. The court also found that the oral testimony of the plaintiff was not essential to prove her case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
1. Heard Shri S.C. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajiv Mishra for the contesting respondents.
2. The instant writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Trial Court, the First and Second appellate Courts in a Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
3. This suit was filed by the respondent No. 5, Ram Kanya seeking a declaration regarding plots of Khata No. 34 (currently khata No. 46), situated in village Hasta Jariye, Pargana Karvi, District Banda. She claimed title by survivorship under Section 175 on the ground that her co-tenure holder, Shiv Sampat, died in 1978 without leaving any heir.
4. It is the admitted case of the parties that the land in dispute initially belonged to one Beni Ram, who had three sons, namely, Shiv Bodhi, Maiya Deen and Bachchi Ram. Shiv Bodhi died issue-less and therefore, half share each, in the disputed Khatas went to the two surviving brothers, Maiya Deen and Bachchi Ram.
5. Bachchi Ram, according to the plaintiff, had two sons, namely, Mahadev and Shiv Sampat and each had 1/4 share each in the disputed khata.
6. Shiv Sampat sold his entire share to the plaintiff, Ram Kanya. His brother, Mahadev, who had two daughters, namely, Medhiya and Ram Kanya sold his entire share to the sons of Medhiya i.e. his daughter’s son.
7. After the sale deeds, both Shiv Sampat and Mahadev, ceased to have any concern with the khata in question.
8. The remaining land of Beni Ram i.e. the half share of Maiya Deen devolved on his two sons, namely, Prabhu Dayal and Ram Badan. Ram Badan died issue-less, earlier in time and therefore, his share devolved upon his brother Prabhu Dayal. Prabhu Dayal also died issue-less and therefore, the half share of Maiya Deen devolved upon Shiv Sampat. Therefore, he again became owner of half share in the disputed khata. It is this share which is in dispute in the instant suit.
9. The factual situation, stated above, is admitted to the parties.
10. The case of the plaintiff is that after purchasing the 1/4 share of Shiv Sampat, she was recorded over the land as a co-tenure holder. Since, Shiv Sampat died without leaving any heir, she became owner of his share by survivorship, in accordance with Section 175 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
11. The suit was contested by the petitioners alleging that Mahadev and Shiv Sampat, sons of Bachchi Ram, had a sister, Smt. Mahadeiya, who died in 1973 leaving behind two sons Ram Suhawan and Birendra Kumar. Since, Ram Suhawan and Birendra Kumar were the sister’s sons, of Ram Sampat, they were mutated over his share by means of a PA-11 entry, in accordance with Section 171 (m) of the Act, as it existed at the relevant point of time.
12. It was also their case that since Shiv Sampat had left behind heirs, namely, sister’s son, the plaintiff could not acquire any title by survivorship and that Section 175 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act would not come into the play.
13. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is whether, Shiv Sampat had a sister, Smt. Mahadeiya. The plaintiff has denied this assertion of the defendant.
14. The three Courts below have accepted the plaintiff’s case that Shiv Sampat and Mahadev did not have any sister Mahadeiya and have therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff.
15. It appears that Ram Suhawan, one of the sons of the alleged Mahadeiya, died on 22.07.1985. He is stated to have executed a will in favour of Janki Saran and Dev Saran his nephews, the sons of Birendra Kumar. The said Birendra Kumar, Janki Saran and Dev Saran are the three petitioners in this writ petition.
16. Assailing the impugned orders, Shri S.C. Varma has submitted that on the death of Shiv Sampat, the sons of Mahadeiya were mutated over the land in question by means of a PA-11 entry in the Khatauni 1382-87F. The suit was filed on 15.04.1985, almost a decade after the entry in favour of the
