BULAKI Vs. LALDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment dated December 14, 1977 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 500/65.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the last male-holder in the family, Bechan had two wives, Bhungi and Bhikni, Bhungi had given birth to three daughters, Gulabi, Sulabi and Bulaki, the appellant. Gulabi died on 7-2-1963. Smt. Sulabi and Smt. Bulaki were substituted as legal heirs after the demise of Bhungi, Bechan's second wife Bhikni had a son, Laldhar, born to her former husband, and brought him along with her when she was married to Bechan. After the marriage with Bechan she had a daughter by name Gunia. During the life time of Bechan, who was a bhumidar under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, he had executed three gift deeds in favour of Laldhar. The first two gift deeds were made in the year 1951 and the third gift deed on 18-11-57. When the said gift deeds were challenged by the appellant, the appellate Court and the High Court upheld the validity of the first two gift deeds and declared the third gift deed to be invalid.

(3.) Shri Juneja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the permission for alienation was not properly obtained from competent officer and that, therefore, it was invalid. He has pointed out that the first two gift deeds were made on June 1, 1951 and June 2, 1951. On 1-1-1951 (1-6-1951) an application for permission to the Sub-Divisional Officer was made and the sanction thereof was granted on the next day, namely, June 2, 1951. By operation of the proviso to Section 24 of the Act, it is contended that even subsequent permission validates the alienation by way of a gift. We find no infirmity in the grant of sanction. It is then contended by Sri Juneja that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to grant the permission since the lands were situated outside his Division. The High Court has looked into the map and held that the lands are situated in that Sub-Division only and that, therefore, he has got jurisdiction to grant the permission. It is then contended that it was not the plea of either of the parties and the High Court would not have gone into that question for the first time. May be the learned counsel is right in this behalf, but with a view to satisfy his conscience the learned Judge had secured the official map and looked into the area and found, as a fact, that the lands were situated within the area of the officer who granted permission. Even though it is found to be not legally permissible, since the learned Judge has done it to do justice, we do not interfere with the finding in the appeal under Article 136. Therefore, the two gift deeds of June 1/2, 1951 are valid. Under those two deeds, Laldhar has got the properties and that therefore, the properties are not open to succession.