The validity of a sale deed hinges on the vendor's legal capacity and compliance with statutory requirements, with courts limited to reviewing concurrent findings unless clear jurisdictional errors are present.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

The present case is arising out of a proceeding under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1953).

2. The original petitioners before this Court have claimed their right on a share of their uncle namely, Shareef on basis of a sale deed executed by vendor (Shareef) on 23.7.1975 in their favour. The sale deed was challenged at instance of petitioner's uncle. However, since consolidation proceedings commenced, therefore, the suit was abated.

3. In the aforesaid circumstances the original petitioners have filed objections in regard to land described in the sale deed being chak no. 700 of village Birdpur No.6, chak No.2 of village Mahdaiya and chak No.56 and 85 of village Marvatiya @ Narchahva, situated in Tehsil Naugarh, District Basti. The aforesaid objections were opposed by contesting respondents. In all there were 10 objections. The Consolidation Officer after considering rival pleadings has framed following five issues :-

4. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 1.3.1980 decided aforesaid issue Nos.1 and 4 in negative. So far as issue No.3 it was decided in affirmative and in regard to issue no.2, it was held that since vendor Shareef has not taken any proceeding to declare himself to be Bhoomidhar, as well as no permission was sought to execute a sale deed in terms of provisions of Act of 1953, therefore, he had no right to sell. The relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter :-

(emphasis supplied)

5. The aforesaid order was challenged at behest of the petitioners by way of filing an appeal before the appellate authority, however, same was rejected by an order dated 27.5.1981 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereunder :-

(emphasis supplied)

6. The fate of revision petition filed at behest of the petitioners also remained same and revision was dismissed by order dated 7.11.1981 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereunder :-

(emphasis supplied)

7. The aforesaid orders passed by the three authorities under Act of 1953 are impugned in the present writ petition.

8. Sri A.K. Srivastava and Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioners have vehemently urged that since challenge to the sale deed before civil court was abated, therefore, the consolidation authorities have no power to cancel it or to withheld its legal consequences. The vendor Shareef has heritated his share and it was rightful for him to make sale deed in favour of the petitioners in regard to his share. The sale deed was executed by vendor after taking proper permission as required under Section 5 (1) (c) of Act of 1953, which was placed on record and finding returned by the Consolidation Officer upheld by other two authorities that the document of permission was a forged document was perverse since it was returned without any proper enquiry.

9. Learned counsel in alternative has submitted that even sale deed is considered to be unenforceable, still petitioners have a right to have share of Shareef being his uncle, who died issueless, however, such issue was not dealt or considered by any authorities.

10. Per contra Mr. Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently urged that not only permission was considered to be a doubtful document on basis of content thereof but since vendor of the