The court affirmed that the rights of co-tenants may be limited by previous compromises, reinforcing the principle that parties must substantiate claims against duly recorded documents.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. This is the defendant’s second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.01.1981 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Kheri dismissing the defendant’s first appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1979 passed in Civil Suit No. 320 of 1977 cancelling the sale deed dated 28th June, 1977.

2. The instant second appeal was admitted by this Court by means of order dated 04.02.1981 on the following substantial question of law which reads as under:

“(i) Whether it was open for the Lower Appellate Court to make misstatement of fact by observing that the certified copies filed by the defendant did not bear the signatures of any person of the Copying Department whereas it did bear the signatures of the copiest who also compared the same and the copy had also the date of issue as 10.01.1978?”

3. In order to answer the aforesaid questions of law, it will be necessary to examine the case of the respective parties. For the sake of convenience, the Court shall refer to the parties as they were originally impleaded at the time of institution of the suit.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant appeal, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal is being noticed hereinafter.

5. The original plaintiffs namely Majeed, Shafaqullah and Dubar instituted a suit before Munsif, Lakhimpur Kheri seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 28.06.1977 executed by Rajjan and Khursheed (original defendants nos. 1 and 2) in favour of Rajeev and Pankaj (minor original defendant nos. 3 and 4 through their father Sri Swami Dayal).

6. The controversy arose in view of the fact that the original defendants Rajjan and Khursheed Ali, their names were not recorded in the plot bearing No. 179 measuring 3.99 acres situate in Village Dauli, Pargana, Kasba and District Kheri, however, upon commencement of the Consolidation Operations in the said village, the original defendants Rajjan and Khursheed had filed their objections under Section 9 -A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1953) seeking rights of co-tenancy. The proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer culminated in a compromise dated 04.06.1962 wherein the names of Rajjan and Khursheed on the basis of the said compromise was incorporated in respect of plot No. 179.

7. On the basis of their names having been recorded during the consolidation operations and also in the Khatauni which was prepared in terms of C.H-41 and C.H-45, accordingly, the original defendants nos. 1 and 2 sold their half share in the said plot in favour of the minor original defendants Rajeev and Pankaj for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 14,000/- by means of a registered sale deed dated 28.06.1977.

8. Being aggrieved against the said sale deed, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.06.1977 which was registered as Suit No. 320 of 1977 on the ground that the original defendants nos. 1 and 2 did not have half share in the property in dispute rather in terms of compromise dated 04.06.1962 arrived at between the parties before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the rights of Rajjan and Khursheed was limited to only 4 Bighas