Back
2018 Supreme(All) 949
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
RAM LAL (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.) ....Appellant
Versus
JOKHAN PRASAD AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Second Appeal No. 3594 of 1964, decided on 13th July, 2018)
Counsel :
K.D. Pandey, A.K. Pandey, H.N. Shukla, Prem Shanker Mishra and R.R. Shukla for the Appellant; B.N. Upadhyay, A.N. Pandey, Anand Kapoor Pandey, Jag Narayan, K.M. Mishra, K.M. Sinha and R.K. Misra for the Respondents.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Order XLI, Rule 31 – U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Section 331 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 101 – Land dispute – Revenue entries – Adjudication upon – Trial Court decreed suit of permanent injunction and restrained defendant-appellant from interfering with possession of plaintiff-respondents in respect of property in dispute – Challenge against – Revenue entries which were in existence on date on which suit was filed in 1956, that status could not have been ignored by Civil Court – Courts below have no jurisdiction to nullify existing revenue entries – However, both Courts below have virtually nullified Revenue entries of disputed land for period just preceding enactment of 1950 Act and thereafter – A Civil Court could not have declared entries in Revenue record wrong, illegal or unreliable and such a suit is barred by Section 331 of 1950 Act – Land in dispute mentioned “cultivated land” in revenue record – Prima facie claim of defendant-appellant stood supported by said entries – Since in Khatauni defendant-appellant was recorded, Trial Court could not have passed a judgment contrary to aforesaid factum of Revenue record and no injunction could have been granted – Since land was agricultural, plaintiffs-respondents could not have declared Bhumidhar of disputed land as this could have been done only by Revenue Court – Burden to prove their case was upon plaintiffs – Impugned judgments set aside. [Paras 23 to 51]
Result; Appeal Allowed.
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is defendant’s appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) arising from judgment dated 9.5.1964 passed by Sri M. Murtuza Husain, Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Civil Appeal No. 281 of 1963 dismissing defendant’s appeal and confirming judgment of Trial Court dated 6.5.1963 passed by Sri Gauri Shankar Nath Tripathi, City Munsif, Jaunpur in Original Suit No. 532 of 1956 whereby Trial Court decreed suit of permanent injunction and restrained defendant-appellant from interfering with the possession of plaintiff-respondents in respect of property in dispute.
2. Five plaintiffs, Jay Karan, son of Mata Badal, Bodhai, son of Kamta Upadhyay, Ram Awadh, son of Shiv Balak Mishra, Thakur Prasad, son of Baijnath Dubey and Hari Shankar, son of Ram Sumer Upadhyay instituted Original Suit No. 532 of 1956 in the Court of Munsif City, Jaunpur against defendants Ram Lal and Raja Ram, sons of Mata Bhikh Upadhyay, Ram Kripal son of Ram Dular Upadhyay, Dharm Dev son of Raja Ram Upadhyay, Rajji, widow of Ram Sunder Upadhyay. During pendency of suit, Rajji, widow of Ram Sunder Upadhyay was deleted from array of parties and Sri Mata Prasad, son of Sukh Nandan Upadhyay, Ram Baran, son of Lakshmi Dutt Upadhyay and Nand Kishore, son of Ahibaran were impleaded as defendants-5, 6 and 7.
3. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over property in dispute being Arazi No. 765, area 8-11, situate at Mauza Bhagwanpur and Arazi No. 349, area 9-86, situate at Mauza Fattupur, Pergana Gadhwara, District Jaunpur. They also sought a permanent injunction restraining defendants from changing nature of property in dispute, alienating the same or otherwise creating any damage to the same.
4. Plaint case set up by plaintiffs is that the aforesaid property is a ‘Grove’ and from 1.7.1952 it has become Bhumidhari of plaintiffs, continued to be owned by plaintiffs since their ancestors. In the aforesaid ancestral Grove, plot of plaintiffs, a number of trees are standing since the time of settlement. In plot No. 765, plaintiffs have also raised some construction and there exist houses belong to them. Plaintiff-3 cultivates 4 decimal area of plot No. 765 alongwith adjoining plots 778 and 779. Defendants have no concern with the aforesaid land but in collusion with Patwari, they have got certain false entries made in Revenue record and pursuant thereto are threatening to interfere in the possession of plaintiffs, giving rise to suit in question.
5. Defendant-1, i.e. appellant, Ram Lal, contested the suit by filing Written Statement dated 16.2.1957, denying allegations made in the Plaint and stated in Additional Pleas that plot No. 349 was Parti (barren) land of Zamindar till 2.11.1946. Defendant-1/appellant obtained it from Zamindar through a lease-deed and has acquired ‘Sirdari rights’ therein under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act, No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”). Mata Prasad and Ram Baran were also tenants in five acres area of Plot No. 349. Plot No. 765 was also Parti of Zamindar and never a Grove. Defendants used part of this plot for various purposes connected with Abadi for the last more than 20 years and also cultivate 40 decimal of this plot. Zamindar executed a lease-deed in favour of defendants on 1.6.1942 and they paid Land Revenue thereon. Defendant-1/appellant became Sirdar of area 3-40 and now after depositing ten times of Land Revenue has acquired Bhumidhari rights. Plaintiffs never had possession over disputed property at any point of time. By way of an amendment in written statement, it was clarified that in Arazi No. 349, area 4-86 and Arazi No. 765, area 0.40, defendants-1 and 2 are Sirdar and in Arazi No. 765, area 3 acres, they are
