Page 1

JUDGMENT

NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4457 OF 2005

SHRI JAGDAMBA PRASAD (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. APPELLANTS

VS.

KRIPA SHANKAR (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ORS. ...

RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants

questioning the correctness of the judgment and final

Order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 4688

Page 2

JUDGMENT

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

of 1974, urging various facts and legal contentions in

justification of their claim.

Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to

appreciate the case of the appellants and also to find

out whether the appellants are entitled for the relief

as prayed in this appeal.

2. The appellants filed objections before the

Consolidation Officer for the deletion of the name of

one Bhukhali (father of the respondents) since the

appellants allege that this name has been fictitiously

mentioned in the revenue records pertaining to Khata

no. 63 of Village Badhaiya, Pargana Kewai. The plot

Nos. 552, 570 and 574 in the present case, are

registered in the names of the landowners Mahadev,

Shambhu Nath and Bhukhali respectively. Mahadev and

Shambhu Nath belong to the same family whereas

Bhukhali was the resident of another village.

3. Objections were initially filed by the appellants

whose father was 1/3^rd share holder of the land which

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

was recorded in the name of Bhukhali-the father of the

respondents. Mahadev and Shambhu Nath, the other share

holders of the land conceded to the rights of the

appellants. Rajpati- the son of Bhukhali, was also

made a party to the proceedings but neither he filed

any objection nor he claimed his rights over the land

in question before the Consolidation Officer.

4. Objections were however, filed by the Respondent

nos. 1 and 2 who are the son and daughter of Bhukhali

and are his legal heirs who are the beneficiaries of

the ‘Will’ executed by Bhukhali in their favour.

However, the said ‘Will’ was never produced by the

Respondent nos. 1 and 2 at any stage before the

authorities/court.

5. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated

13.7.1971 accepted the objections of the appellants

and deleted the name of Bhukhali from the revenue

records by declaring that the entry of his name in the

records was forged since Respondent nos. 1 and 2

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

failed to produce the alleged ‘Will’ executed by

Bhukhali in their favour. The respondents failed to

produce any other document to prove their title on the

land in question.

6. Aggrieved by the Order of the Consolidation

Officer, Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal

before the Assistant Settlement Officer. The same was

dismissed vide Order dated 28.1.1972. Rajpati, son of

Bhukhali, who was made party to the proceedings, also

filed a belated appeal after about one year of passing

of the Order dated 13.7.1971 on the ground that he had

no knowledge about the said Order. The said appeal of

Rajpati was dismissed by a separate Order dated

11.12.1972.

7. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 thereafter, filed a

Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority i.e.

the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad

against the Order of the Assistant Settlement Officer

dated 28.1.1972. However, the Respondent nos. 1 and 2

4

Page 5

JUDGMENT

C.A. No. 4457 of 2005

produced certified copies of documents executed in

1934 pertaining to auction sale of the land in

question before the Revisional Court. The auction sale

is in favour of Bhukhali which shows that the share of

the appellants’ father was purchased by Bhukhali in

the year 1934. The Revisional Authority, by placing

reliance on th