JUDGMENT

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 14. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent No.1. Notice on respondent Nos. 3 to 13 has been deemed sufficient by the order dated 27.3.2023.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24.9.2018, passed by the respondent No.1, Board of Revenue, in Second Appeal No.6 of 2009-2010 (Sursatti Devi and another v. Rajpatti Devi and others).

3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners filed a suit under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on 4.2.1985 before the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st class, Karchhana, District Allahabad for declaration as Bhumidhar in respect of the plots of land in question. It is stated that written statements were also filed. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 is the second wife of Ram Pratap, who was the recorded Bhumidhar in possession of the plots in question and he died on 17.3.1980. The petitioner No.1 is stated to be blind by birth. From the wedlock of Ram Pratap and his first wife, five daughters were born who were married during the lifetime of Ram Pratap. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 never executed any gift deed on 1.3.1980 in favour of the aforesaid five daughters of her husband and that the gift deed was a forged and illegal document. By a judgment and order dated 29.4.1989, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner No.1 and she was declared Bhumidhar.

4. Thereafter, the step-daughters of the petitioner No.1 filed first appeal under Section 331 of the Act of 1950, against the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1989. The Appellate Authority (the Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division) dismissed the appeal by a judgment and order dated 14.9.1990. It is stated that thereafter, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue which appeal was allowed on 24.9.2018 while setting aside the orders dated 29.4.1989 and 14.9.1990.

5. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 had filed a civil suit in the Court of the Additional Munsif XIII Allahabad, bearing O.S. No. 457 of 1981 for cancellation of the gift deed dated 1.3.1980, which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 30.4.1983. Against the decree made pursuant to the judgment and order dated 30.4.1983, the petitioner No.1 filed a civil appeal which was allowed by judgment and order dated 20.07.1984 and the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the plaint was directed to be returned back to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that valid document regarding the date of death of the husband of the petitioner No.1 was filed in the suit instituted under Section 229 -B of the Act of 1950, which reflected the date of death as 17.3.1980. The contention is that the second appellate court has re-appreciated the facts and has recorded a perverse findings that the late husband of the petitioner No.1 had died before the petitioner No.1. It is contended that there was no question of the petitioner No.1, who was blind by birth and a 'Pardanasin' lady, to have executed the gift deed dated 1.3.1980 in favour of her five daughters during the lifetime of her husband and, therefore, that gift deed itself was a fraudulent and void document.

7. Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the private-respondents aforesaid, has opposed the writ petition and stated that the second appellate court has rightly appreciated the factual issues involved inasmuch as the judgments and decrees of th