Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Salil Kumar Rai, J.
Jai Prakash - Appellant
Vs.
Board Of Revenue And Others - Respondent
Writ-B No. 11311 of 1995
Decided On : 01-10-2019
G.N. Verma, Adv., A.B. Paul, Adv., A.N. Verma, Adv., A.P. Paul, Adv., Anuj Kumar Sharma, Adv., Ashutosh Pandey, Adv., B.B. Paul, Adv., H.N. Tripathi, Adv., H.O.K. Srivastava, Adv., Alka Srivastava, Adv., Ashok Kumar, Adv., Avadhesh Kumar Upadhyay, Adv., G.C. Sharma, Adv., Kumar Anish, Adv., Pradeep Chandra, Adv., Radha Upadhyay, Adv., Rohit Upadhyay, Adv., Sankatha Rai, Adv., Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Adv., Syed Wajid Ali, Adv., Rohit Kumar Upadhyay, Adv.
Headnote:
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,1950 – Section 229-B – petitioner alleging that Bal Mukund and Ram Swarup constituted a Hindu undivided family and the suit property was purchased by Ram Swarup from the joint family fund and Ram Swarup, being the 'head' of the family, was recorded in the revenue records as tenant of the suit property. It was stated in the plaint that the petitioner and the respondents are members of a Hindu undivided family and there had been no partition either between Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund or between the petitioner and the respondents. It was alleged that the suit property was part of the hindu joint family property and, therefore, the petitioner along with the respondents was a co-tenure holder of the suit property having 1/3 share and entitled to seek partition of the suit property – Held, Evidence relied upon by the Board of Revenue in its impugned order were not relevant to decide the title of the parties in the suit property and the findings of the first appellate court could not have been set-aside on the ground that the said evidence were not considered by the first appellate court – no perversity in the findings of the first appellate court empowering the Board of Revenue to interfere in the said findings exercising its powers under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 read with Section 100 CPC. Evidently, the Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 read with Section 100 CPC by interfering in the findings of the first appellate court and the impugned order of the Board of Revenue is contrary to law – Writ petition allowed. (Para 21 and 22)
Facts of the Case:
petitioner alleging that Bal Mukund and Ram Swarup constituted a Hindu undivided family and the suit property was purchased by Ram Swarup from the joint family fund and Ram Swarup, being the 'head' of the family, was recorded in the revenue records as tenant of the suit property. It was stated in the plaint that the petitioner and the respondents are members of a Hindu undivided family and there had been no partition either between Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund or between the petitioner and the respondents. It was alleged that the suit property was part of the hindu joint family property and, therefore, the petitioner along with the respondents was a co-tenure holder of the suit property having 1/3 share and entitled to seek partition of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
Evidence relied upon by the Board of Revenue in its impugned order were not relevant to decide the title of the parties in the suit property and the findings of the first appellate court could not have been set-aside on the ground that the said evidence were not considered by the first appellate court – no perversity in the findings of the first appellate court empowering the Board of Revenue to interfere in the said findings exercising its powers under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 read with Section 100 CPC. Evidently, the Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 read with Section 100 CPC by interfering in the findings of the first appellate court and the impugned order of the Board of Revenue is contrary to law.
Result: Writ petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
Salil Kumar Rai, J.
The present writ petition arises out of proceedings registered under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act,1950').
2. The dispute between the parties relates to Khata No. 1430 which included Plot Nos. 3655,3656,3664,3667,3668,3670 and 3671 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Suit Property'). It is admitted between the parties that one Durga Prasad had two sons, namely, Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund. Ram Swarup died in 1932 and his widow Sukhdei died in 1935. Bal Mukund died in 1960. From his first wife, Bal Mukund had one son, namely, Sagar Dutt and from his second wife, Bal Mukund had two sons, namely, Shyam Lal and Jai Prakash. Shyam Lal died in 1978. Sagar Dutt died during the pendency of the case in the courts below. The respondent nos. 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of Sagar Dutt and respondent nos. 8 to 11 are the legal heirs of Shyam Lal. Jai Prakash is the petitioner in the present writ petition. During his life time, Ram Swarup was recorded as the tenure holder of the suit property. It appears that after 1932, i.e., after the death of Ram Swarup, Sagar Dutt was recorded as the tenure holder of the suit property and continued to be so recorded in 1359 Fasli and in the subsequent revenue records prepared under the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act,1901. In 1983, the petitioner instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act,1950 impleading Sagar Dutt and the descendants of Shyam Lal as defendants and prayed for a decree declaring him to be a co-tenure holder of the suit property having 1/3 share in the same and for a partition of the suit property. It appears from the records that the said case was re-numbered as Case No. 10 of 1994 and shall be referred as such in the present order. Case No. 10 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner alleging that Bal Mukund and Ram Swarup constituted a Hindu undivided family and the suit property was purchased by Ram Swarup from the joint family fund and Ram Swarup, being the 'head' of the family, was recorded in the revenue records as tenant of the suit property. It was stated in the plaint that the petitioner and the respondents are members of a Hindu undivided family and there had been no partition either between Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund or between the petitioner and the respondents. It was alleged that the suit property was part of the hindu joint family property and, therefore, the petitioner along with the respondents was a co-tenure holder of the suit property having 1/3 share and entitled to seek partition of the suit property.
3. Sagar Dutt contested Case No. 10 of 1994 and filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint that there was no partition between Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund. In his written statement, Sagar Dutt stated that the suit property was the self acquired property of Ram Swarup who purchased it from his independent income. It was stated in the written statement that after the death of Ram Swarup, Sagar Dutt became the sole tenure holder of the suit property on the basis of a family settlement and was recorded as such in the revenue records. It was further stated in the written statement that the defendant was in exclusive possession of the suit property since 1932 without any obstruction either by Bal Mukund or the petitioner and respondent nos. 8 to 11 and no objections were filed either by the petitioner or by Bal Mukund after the enforcement of the Act,1950 or during the different settlements made before the enforcement of the Act,1950 and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation as well as by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court, i.e., the Assistant Collector / Additional City Magistrate, District Meerut framed eight issues. The issues framed by the trial court and relevant for a decision of the present writ petition were as to whether the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner was
