The main legal point established in the judgment is that the injunction decree from a civil suit does not operate as res-judicata in a title objection proceeding under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Additionally, the judgment clarified the requirements for proving the authenticity of a Gift deed based on the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Brief facts of the case are that Khata No.116 situated in Village-Sultanpur Khas, Pargana-Garwara, Tehsil-Machhali Shahar, District-Jaunpur was recorded in the name of petitioners’ father, Kashi Ram son of Ram Tahal. Against the Basic Year Entry, one objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed by Shri Ram and Others in respect of Plot No.728 area 38 decimal of Khata No.161 that Kashi Ram is wrongly recorded over the same so his name be recorded after expunging the name of the Kashi Ram. Another objection against the Basic Year Entry was filed by respondent no.2, Smt. Jairagi daughter of Smt. Mangri in respect of Plot Nos.663, 664, 686, 687 and 695 of Khata No.161 to record her name exclusively after expunging the name of Kashi Ram. Respondent no.2 has placed following pedigree in support of her case:-

2. The basis of the claim of respondent no.2 (Jairaji) was that Ram Lal has executed Gift deed on 14.4.1950 in favour of his three daughters, namely, Sukhiya, Dukhiya and Mangri, who have died, as such, she is the sole-bhumidhar being daughter’s daughter of disputed plots.

3. Another Pedigree has been mentioned in Para No.4 of the order of Revisional Court dated 11.8.1982 which is mentioned as undisputed, the same is as follows:-

4. Before Consolidation Officer following three issues were framed:-

(i) Whether Shri Ram is bhumidhar of Plot No.728 area 38 decimal.

(ii) Whether Smt. Jairaji daughter of Mangri is exclusive owner of plots in dispute as given in her objection.

(iii) Whether name of Kashi Ram is wrongly recorded over disputed plots.

5. Issue no.1 was decided in favour of objector Shri Ram as the same was wrongly recorded in 1360 fasli in the name of Ram Lal without any basis while earlier it was recorded in the name of ancestor of Shri Ram.

6. With respect to issue Nos.2 and 3 petitioners’ father Kashi Ram and respondent no.2, Smt. Jairaji adduced oral and documentary evidences in support of their cases.

7. According to Kashi Ram his father Ram Tahal and father of deceased Ram Lal were real brothers, as such, Ram Lal was cousin of Kashi Ram. He further alleged that Smt. Mangari died first in the three daughters, Sukhiya died after Mangari and Dukhiya died after Sukhiya, all the three daughters were married in the life time of their father Ram Lal and all of them were residing in their in-laws house (Sasural).

8. From the side of respondent no.2, judgment of civil Court passed in Suit No.435 of 1959 (Sukhiya and Others Vs. Kashi Ram) was filed, the suit was for injunction, which was decreed on 10.11.1960 in favour of plaintiffs and Civil AppealNo.148 of 961 filed by Kashi Ram was dismissed. From the side of petitioners’ father Kashi Ram, order dated 26.7.1957 passed by Naib Teshildar in Case No.3488 was filed before Consolidation Officer by which name of Kashi Ram was ordered to be recorded after expunging the name of Ram Lal. Smt. Jairaji filed a case in revenue Court on the basis of civil Court decree for injunction was dismissed by Assistant Collector by order dated 28.5.1962 and further the case under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act filed by respondent no.2 was also dismissed by Sub-Divisional Officer which proves that petitioners’ father remained recorded over disputed plots in pursuance of the order dated 26.7.1957 till the basic year of consolidation. Operation, objection and appeal against the Basic Year Entry were dismissed by Consolidation Courts. Both parties filed revenue entries in support of their cases. Consolidation Officer considered the oral evidences and documentary evidence adduc