VIJAY PAL SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned. Substitution allowed in C. A. Nos. 993/79 and 2506/78.

(2.) Common question of law arises for decision in these matters. They are disposed of altogether.

(3.) Khata Nos. 26, 83 and 111 in Dhanauli village in Meerut District Uttar Pradesh originally belonged to Devia, who had three sons, namely, Niadar Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Kunwar Singh. Niadar Singh died in 1916, Bhanwar Singh died in 1910 leaving behind his widow Shiv Devi. Kunwar Singh died on December 6, 1912, leaving behind him Ram Phool Singh, Richhpal Singh, Narain Singh and Sohan Singh, the Appellants in C. A. No. 2506/78. Shiv Devi died on September 8, 1956 leaving behind her daughter Champi Devi. The appellants in C.A. No. 991-993/79 are son-in-law of Champi and Rajendra Pal Singh, grandson of Champi. In the consolidation proceedings, a dispute had arisen whether Champi was entitled to 1/3rd share in the property left by Devia and inherited by his three sons referred to herein before. The mutation entries in the revenue records disclose that the three brothers were in separate possession and enjoyment during their lifetime. On their demise, the names of the widows of Naiadar Singh, namely Smt, Sarjo Devi and widow of Bhanwar Singh, namely Shiv Devi, were entered in the revenue records as possessors of the respective lands held by Naiadar Singh and Bhanwar Singh. It is an admitted fact that the name of Shiv Devi continued to be in the revenue record. The Consolidation Officer found that her name was mutated in consolation for her maintenance and the Settlement Officer rejected her claim for 1/3rd share on the ground that she was not in possession and in her own right and since Bhanwar Singh died in 1910 she has no right to share in the property left by her husband and the sons of Kunwar Singh are entitled to succeed to the estate of Bhanwar Singh. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937, does not apply to the claim made by Shiv Devi. On appeal the Settlement Officer found that she was in possession of the property in her right having succeeded to Bhanwar Singh. But her right is one of limited estate. After the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had come into force, limited estate was enlarged into absolute right in respect of Khata numbers 26 and 83; in respect of khata number 111 since it is a tenancy right, having purchased the tenancy rights after paying ten times the land revenue, she became the owner. Therefore, it was held that she was entitled to 1/3rd share. Accordingly, the land was mutated and her name was recorded to the extend of her 1/3rd share. The same was confirmed by the Deputy Director Consolidation. Appellants Ram Phool Singh and others, representing the branch of Kunwar Singh, filed writ petition in the High Court. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and maintained the order dated October 5, 1978 of the consolidation officer holding that Champi did not acquire any right since Shiv Devi had not succeeded to the estate of her husband Bhanwar Singh. Therefore, she was not entitled to separate share and recording of the holdings in her name was incorrect. Thus, these appeals by special leave.