MANIA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the pre sent case is in respect of plots Nos. 1150. 1151 and 1152/1 of Khata No. 121 of vil lage Makhena district Bulandshahr. These three plots along with other plots of Khata No. 121 admittedly belonged to Smt. Namania opposite party No. 4. Petitioner is the daughter of Smt. Nama nia and opposite party No. 2 is her real sister. Opposite party No. 3 is the hus band of opposite party No. 2. It appears that opposite party No. 4 executed a sale deed in respect of the entire holding No. 121, on 13th November, 1960 in favour of the petitioner. This execution of the sale deed of the entire Khata in favour of one of the daughters caused bad blood between the two sisters. They fell out so much so that Marpit took place between them causing grievous hurt to Smt. Bhuria opposite party No. 2. After this Marpit between the two sis ters a sale deed was executed on 8th June, 1962 in respect of the above three plots which are a portion of Khata No. 121 in favour of Smt. Bhuria allegedly for an apparent consideration of Rs. 2500/-.

(2.) AFTER the execution ' of this sale deed parties again fell out and a civil suit was instituted for the cancella tion of the sale deed and criminal pro ceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were started in respect of the plots in dispute. Proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. terminated in favour of the petitioner. The Civil suit which was instituted by the petitioner in the court of Munsif was dismissed by the Munsif who although held that no cash consi deration passed in respect of the sale sent (sic) came to the conclusion that the sale deed had been executed on ac count of a compromise having been ar rived at between the parties after the Marpit between them and it was in res ponse to the compromise to patch up the differences between them that the sale deed had been executed. Since the Munsif was of the opinion that the sale deed was in consideration of the rap prochement between the parties the sale deed was held to be valid. He rejected the case of the petitioner about duress and coercion.

(3.) BEFORE the Consolidation Offi cer opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 claim ed tenure-holder's right in respect of the three disputed plots on the basis of the sale deed dated 8th June 1962. On the other hand the petitioner asserted that the sale deed executed in favour of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 was the result of duress and coercion and the same being without consideration was void. The Consolidation Officer placed onus on the transferee to prove the pay ment of consideration and having arriv ed at the conclusion that there was no corroborative evidence in support of the payment held that the sale deed was without consideration and he further held that possession of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 was not proved. In the result he rejected the objection of Smt. Bhuria and directed the expunction of the name of Smt. Namania who had not objected to the expunction of her name from the consolidation records. The Consolidation Officer gave no finding on the question of duress and coercion rais ed by the petitioner.