Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Ram Murat – Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C., Allahabad and Others – Respondents
WRIT – B No. -3449 of 2018
Decided On : 29-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Kamleshwar Singh, Krishna Kant Vishwakarma, Rakesh Pande
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Praveen Chandra Mishra, Ram Sajiwan Mishra

The court emphasized the importance of proving the ceremony of adoption and the admissibility of documents under the Indian Evidence Act. It also clarified the limitations of the revisional court's jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act.

Headnote:
Adoption Deed - Dispute over plots of Khata No. 81 - U.P.C.H. Act - Section 9A(2) - Sections 64, 65, 74 & 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act
Fact of the Case:

The dispute relates to plots of Khata No. 81 in Village-Dewapur, Pergana-Nawabganj, District-Allahabad. The objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner’s father Ram Lakhan to be recorded along with Hira Lal over plot No. 52 and exclusively over plot Nos. 23, 24 and 25. Various parties claimed rights based on adoption deed, sale deeds, and previous consolidation operations.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the adoption deed claimed by Hira Lal was void and ineffective, as the ceremony of adoption was not proved. The court also found that the certified copy of the adoption deed was inadmissible under Sections 64, 65, 74 & 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court held that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction in upholding the adoption deed and maintaining the basic year entry.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the adoption deed, admissibility of the certified copy of the adoption deed, and the jurisdiction of the revisional court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act, the Indian Evidence Act, and previous judgments to determine the validity and admissibility of the adoption deed. It also emphasized the limitations of the revisional court's jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
Final Decision: The impugned revisional order was quashed, and the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer were maintained.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh along with Mr. Krishna Kant Vishwakarma, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Sajiwan Mishra, counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Mr. Praveen Chandra Mishra has put in appearance for Respondents No. 8 to 18.

2. Briefs facts of the case are that dispute relates to plots of Khata No. 81 situated in Village-Dewapur, Pergana-Nawabganj, District-Allahabad. Particulars of plots of Khata No.81, its area and Basic Year entry are as follows:-

S. No.	Khata No.	Plots Nos.	Area	Name of the tenure holder recorded in Basic Year
1.	81	52 (Bhumidhari)	5-4-12	Hira Lal adopted
2.	81	23 (sirdari)	0-5-0	son of Ram Charan
3.	81	24 (Sirdari)	2-10-11
4.	81	55 (Sirdari)	0-5-0

Status of revenue entry in C.H. Form 45 in respect to 1st consolidation operation, are as follows:-

S. No.	Khata No.	Plots Nos.	Area	Name of the tenure holder recorded in Basic Year
(Class-1 ka Bhumidhar)
1.	1	52	5-4-12	Ram Charan son of Sheetal, Ram Lakhan (major), Hira Lal, (16 year minor) guardian Ram Lakhan real brother, sons of Mahavir

S. No.	Khata No.	Plots Nos.	Area	Name of the tenure holder recorded in Basic Year
(Class-2 Sirdar)
1.	68	23	0.5.0	Ram Charan son of Sheetal
		24	2.10.11

3. Against the Basic Year Entry, an objection under section-9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by petitioner’s father Ram Lakhan with the prayer that he should be recorded alongwith Hira Lal over plot No. 52 and their share should be recorded as ½ each. A further prayer was made that sale deed executed by Hira Lal in favour of the Mata Prasad in respect to plot no. 52 be cancelled. In respect to plot Nos. 23, 24 and 25, petitioner’s father prayed to record his name exclusively after expunging the name of Hira Lal, Father of respondent No.4.

4. Hira Lal son of Ram Charan filed his written statement and opposed the objection filed by Ram Lakhan. Hira Lal claimed the right on the basis of the adoption deed executed by Ram Charan in his favour on 23.3.1948.

5. Mata Prasad claimed the right on the basis of registered sale deed executed by the Hira Lal in his favour on 5.7.1983 in respect to 1.0.0 area of plot no. 52 so his name be recorded in place of Hira Lal. Ayodhya Prasad and Nanhe Lal claimed the right on the basis of the registered sale deed executed on 3.7.1973 by Ram Lakhan in their favour in respect to 2-12-6 area of plot no.52. Accordingly, Ayodhya Prasad, Nanhe Lal (ancestor of respondent nos. 8 to 18) prayed for recording their names after expunging the name of vendor Ram Lakhan.

6. Nine issues were framed before the Consolidation Officer and parties adduced oral and documentary evidences in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer while deciding the issues nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 recorded finding of fact that adoption deed as claimed by Hira Lal is void and ineffective as ceremony of adoption has not been proved by Hira Lal. Consolidation Officer further recorded finding that even after adoption, Hira Lal executed a registered sale deed in 1974, showing his age as 32 years and his father’s name as Mahavir (natural father) which demonstrate that adoption deed is void. Accordingly, Consolidation Officer ordered to record the name of Ram Lakhan (deceased), substituted by Ram Murat for ½ share along with Hira Lal, son of Mahavir in the place of Hira Lal, adopted son of Ram Charan.

7. While deciding the Issue Nos. 5 & 6, Consolidation Officer ordered to record the name of Ayodhya and Nanhe Lal, being vendees of Ram Lakhan, son of Mahavir as claim for ½ share of Ram Lakhan was accepted.

8. While deciding Issue Nos. 7 & 8, plot nos.23, 24 & 55 were ordered to be vested in state after expunging the name of recorded tenure holder by order of Consolidation Officer dated 7.10.2008.

9. Against the order of Consolidation Off