Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Ram Ashrey Prasad Singh - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation and 8 Others - Respondent
Writ-B No. 64015 of 2013
Decided On : 05-08-2016
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sale Deed - Section 9-A, Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 164 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The dispute revolves around the nature of a deed dated 13.08.1959, whether it was a sale deed or a mortgage by conditional sale, and the possession and ownership of the disputed land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deed dated 13.08.1959 was a mortgage by conditional sale, not an absolute sale. It also held that the possession and ownership of the disputed land were not adequately established. The court set aside the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation and remanded the matter for fresh decision.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the deed dated 13.08.1959, the transfer of possession, and the ownership rights of the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 164 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 to determine the nature of the deed and the transfer of possession. It emphasized the importance of establishing clear intentions and conduct of the parties in interpreting the legal implications of the deed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision in accordance with the law.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. –
Heard Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Tiwari and Sri Rang Nath Pandey, for the contesting respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10.03.2005 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14.11.2013, passed in title proceeding, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. Devta Prasad Mishra (respondent-3) filed a time barred objection on 07.02.1995 (which was later on registered as Case No. 305 of 2002-03) under Section 9-A of the Act, for recording his name over plot 221 (area 0.57 acre), situated at village Dafi, pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi. He took plea that Hari Nath Singh (father of the petitioner) sold the disputed land to his father Guru Prasad Mishra, through registered sale deed dated 13.08.1959 and handed over possession over it to him. Since then, he had been in possession of the land in dispute. His father died about one and half month ago. On 07.02.1995, when he went to Court and made inquiry from Lekhpal, then he came to know that name of his father was not mutated in revenue records over disputed land. He searched original sale deed dated 13.08.1959 at his house but it was not found. He had moved an application for issue of certified copy of the sale deed.
4. The petitioner contested the objection and filed a counter objection. The petitioner stated that Hari Nath Singh executed a mortgage by conditional sale, dated 13.08.1959, of the disputed land for Rs. 300/-. Mortgage money was returned on 05.11.1959, in terms of deed. Guru Prasad Mishra made endorsement of receiving back of mortgage money on back of the deed and also signed it. He returned original mortgage deed, to the father of the petitioner. Possession over land in dispute was never handed over to Guru Prasad Mishra. As mortgage has already been redeemed as such Guru Prasad Mishra never derived any right over it, during his life time, who survived up to 1994. After his death, objection has been filed by respondent-3 on false allegations. Other opposite parties namely Badri Narain Singh (respondent-4) and Ram Adhin Singh (now represented by respondents-5 to 9), who were recorded co-tenure holders of the land in dispute, also filed their counter objection, stating therein that the disputed land was joint holding of Hari Nath Singh, Badri Narain Singh and Ram Adhin Singh, in which Hari Nath Singh had ? share only. Possession over disputed land was never delivered to Guru Prasad Mishra. In any case, Hari Nath Singh had no right to sell their ? share in the land in dispute.
5. The case was tried, by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 16.04.2003, held that document dated 13.08.1959 was not a sale deed but was a sale with condition to repurchase. In terms of the deeds, entire sale consideration was returned. As such, the name of respondent-3 cannot be recorded over disputed land on its basis. On these findings, he dismissed the objection of respondent-3. Respondent-3 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1706/514) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his order dated 10.03.2005, held that Consolidation Officer, in his order, although referred the case law relied upon by the appellant but has not discussed them, although question of law was involved in the case. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and remanded the case to Consolidation Officer for fresh decision on merit.
6. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 148/157/208/236/305/1395), respondent-3 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 143/158/209/237/306/1392) and Badri Narian Singh filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 150/159/210/238/307/1403) from the aforesaid order. All the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 14.11.2013, held that under Section 54 of Transfer of
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
