Back
2013 Supreme(All) 3216
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Mohan and 7 Others - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, and 3 Others - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55741 of 2013
Decided On : 28-10-2013
For the Petitioner: K. Ajit
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restrictions on the appellate court's power to let in fresh evidence and the conditions for admitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.
Headnote:
Consolidation of Holdings Act - Land Dispute - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9-A - Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [Section 9-A, Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, particularly Section 9-A, and Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. The court also referred to the principles of admitting additional evidence and the restrictions on the appellate court's power to let in fresh evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a land dispute related to the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The petitioners contested the objection of respondent-4 regarding co-tenancy of land, claiming that respondent-4 did not belong to his family. The case involved multiple appeals, revisions, and applications for summoning evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners deliberately absented and did not adduce any evidence before the Consolidation Officer, and none of the conditions prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for admitting additional evidence were fulfilled. The court also dismissed the arguments regarding the authenticity of the evidence adduced by respondent-4.
Issues: The issues involved the admissibility of additional evidence, the authenticity of the evidence adduced by respondent-4, and the deliberate delay in the hearing of the case by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditions prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for admitting additional evidence were not fulfilled, and the arguments regarding the authenticity of the evidence adduced by respondent-4 could be raised by the petitioner. The court also found that the petitioners were purposely delaying the hearing of the case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in it.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Heard Sri K. Ajit, counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 03.08.2013, rejecting the application of the petitioners dated 02.05.2013, for summoning Gram Panchayat Adhikari, for proving the certified copy of Pariwar Register filed by respondent-4 and application dated 06.06.2013 for admitting additional evidence of the certified copies of Pariwar Register filed by the petitioners, in title proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The dispute relates to the land of basic consolidation year khatas 259, 674 and 1048, of village Dadiyal Ehatmali, tahsil Tanda, district Rampur, which were recorded in the name of Gyani son of Tika Ram (now represented by the petitioners). Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) filed an objection (registered as Case 48/2009-10) under Section 9-A of the Act, on 01.05.1997 claiming co-tenancy of 1/2 share in the land in dispute. It has been stated by respondent-4 that the land in dispute was his ancestral property from the time of common ancestor Tika Ram son Moti, who had two sons Kaluwa and Gyani. Kaluwa, father of respondent-4 died about 40 years ago during life time of his father Tika Ram, leaving behind him as his only heir. After death of Tika Ram, the name of Gyani alone was recorded, in the revenue record, as at that time he was minor. Gyani also died and was inherited by his five sons Bhola Ram, Mohan, Kashi Ram, Chandra Pal and Dharam Pal. The petitioners contested the objection of respondent-4 and stated that respondent-4 did not belong to his family. The real name of Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) was Bhagwati son of Natthu who was son of Kashi. In collusion with his brother Hira and Shyam Lal sons of Natthu, Bhagwati did not claim heirship of his father Natthu. Now he has filed this objection on false allegations, changing his name as Bhagwan Das son of Kaluwa. Tika Ram had only one son Gyani. Tika Ram died 40 years ago, since then name of Gyani alone was recorded over the land in dispute and respondent-4 never raised any objection in this respect although he had attained the age of majority long before. The objection was tried and decided by Consolidation Officer, Rampur, who by his order dated 20.12.2001 held that Kaluwa father of Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) was son of Tika Ram. Kaluwa was predeceased to his father Tika Ram as such after death of Tika Ram, Bhagwan Das inherited 1/2 share in the property in dispute. However in respect of some plots objection of Bhagwan Das was dismissed. The petitioners filed appeals (registered as Appeal Nos. 167/413 and 168/414) from the aforesaid order which were dismissed by Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 01.09.2002.
4. The petitioners filed two revision (registered as Revision Nos. 85/130 and 168/414) from the aforesaid order. Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 452/414) from the order of Consolidation Officer. All the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur, who by the order dated 24.05.2008, allowed the revisions and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 20.12.2001 and 22.12.2001 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 01.09.2002 and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer, for deciding the objection afresh after giving opportunity of fresh evidence to the parties.
5. Although Deputy Director of Consolidation, while remanding the case to Consolidation Officer, fixed a date for appearance of the parties before Consolidation Officer, but after remand the petitioners absented. They neither appeared before the Consolidation Officer nor adduced any evidence. Respondent-4 moved an application for summoning Gram Panchayat Officer for proving the certified copy of Pariwar Register filed by him. The Consolidation Officer summ
