Back
2005 Supreme(All) 2594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
Deo Nath and Others - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 14392 of 1983
Decided on : 20-05-2005
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Triveni Shanker and Dharmendra Vaish
For the Respondent: R.N. Singh, S.N. Singh and S.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that sale deeds executed beyond the rightful share of inheritors in rent-free grantee properties are void and can be disregarded by consolidation authorities. Additionally, the authority of guardians to execute deeds on behalf of minors is limited to natural guardians and not de facto guardians.
Headnote:
Rent-Free Grantee - Inheritance Dispute - Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 - Section 3(6), Section 18, Ram Gopal and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., 2000 ALR 370 (Supreme Court) - The court discussed the inheritance rights of rent-free grantees under personal law and the implications of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 and U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. It also highlighted the interpretation of Section 3(6) and Section 18 and the precedent set by the case of Ram Gopal and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., 2000 ALR 370 (Supreme Court). The court emphasized that the sale deeds executed beyond the rightful share of the inheritors were void and could be disregarded by the consolidation authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an inheritance dispute over a rent-free grantee property, with conflicting claims from the petitioners and contesting respondents. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondents, leading to the petitioners challenging the order through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deeds executed beyond the rightful share of the inheritors were void and could be disregarded by the consolidation authorities. It also concluded that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had erred in holding the sale deeds to be only voidable documents.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the inheritance rights of the petitioners as rent-free grantees, the validity of the sale deeds executed by the inheritors, and the authority of the guardians to execute such deeds on behalf of minors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the sale deeds executed beyond the rightful share of the inheritors were void and could be disregarded by the consolidation authorities. It also emphasized the legal principle that the authority of guardians to execute deeds on behalf of minors is limited to natural guardians and not de facto guardians.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.8.1983 was quashed. No costs were awarded in the case.
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.8.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi.
2. The dispute relates to khata No. 7 situate in village Chak Adhiya district Varanasi which was recorded as Mafi Dakhalikari (rent-free grantee) of one Sudin. The undisputed pedigree of Sudin is as under:
Sudin
Lakhpati
Baij Nath
Ram Adhar
Smt. Rajesra
Deo Nath
Bikrama
Sant Kumar
Basant Kumar
Babu Nandan
Mahadeo
3. After death of Sudin, Baij Nath father of petitioner No. 1 executed sae deed of 1/4share in the land in dispute in favour of contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8. Respondent No. 9 also executed sale deed of the remaining half on his behalf as well as on behalf respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as their guardian, since they were minor at that time in favour of contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8. On the basis of the aforesaid two sale deeds the name of contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8 was recorded over the disputed khata. During consolidation operations petitioner No. 1 challenged the basic year entry in the name of contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8 by filing an objection u/s 9A(2) of the Act seeking declaration in their favour over 1/4th share in the land on the ground that on death of his grandfather Sudin he along with his father Baij Nath inherited 1/2 share jointly and the remaining was inherited by Ram Adhar. Thus he was entitled to 1/4th share and his father Baij Nath illegally executed sale deed of the entire 1/2 share in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 8 which was void to the extent of 1/4th share.
4. Another set of objection was filed by petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 on the ground that their father Ram Adhar inherited 1/2 share of the land in dispute on death of Sudin and after death of Ram Adhar they along with respondent No. 9 inherited 4/10th share each. The sale deed of their shares executed by their brother Bikrama during their minority as guardian was void because their mother was alive at that time and she being the natural guardian any sale deed executed by any other person would be void. Two sets of objection were contested by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 on the ground that during life time of Baij Nath petitioner No. 1 had no share and Bikrama has executed the sale deed as karta khandan.
5. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.5.1981 allowed both the objections. Appeal filed by contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8 was also dismissed. However, revision filed by them was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 25.8.1983.
6. With regard to the claim of petitioner No. 1 the Consolidation Officer has recorded a finding that Sudin died sometimes in between 1309 to 1333 fasli when Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 was enforced and since the land in dispute was mafi (rent-free grantee) the inheritance shall be governed by personal law and both petitioner No. 1 and his father Baij Nath would inherit 1/4th share each and as such the sale deed executed by Baij Nath more than of his 1/4th share would be void to that extent.
7. Regarding objection filed by petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 it was held that since their mother was alive on the date of sale deed any sale deed executed by Bikrama the elder brother of the shares of the minor as their guardian would be void as he was not a natural guardian.
8. The Consolidation Officer also held that petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 would be co-tenants and since there was no plea of ouster by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 as such there was no question of their perfecting rights by adverse possession.
9. The findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer was also confirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation while dismissing the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 8.
10. The revisional court has allowed the revision on the solitary finding that the execution of both
