INDRA PAL SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this petition, arising out of derpassed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, is confined to plot No. 243/2 which admittedly was sold on 25th April, 1917 by Smt. Anari, widow of Shitla Bux Singh to Hari Bansh Singh, father of opposite party No. 12 and grand father of opposite parties No. 17 to 21. Till the stage of Deputy Director the contest was between parties No. 3 and 4 on one hand and opposite parties Nos. 8 to 12 the other. One objection was filed by opposite parties No. 17 to 21 was well who claimed to be co-Bhumidhar along with opposite parties Nos. 8 to 12 as land was purchased by joint family fund. The claim of opposite parties No. 17 to 21 was accepted whereas the claim of opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 was rejected. These findings have not been challenged and have become final. During pendency of revision Smt. Anari dud. The petitioners claiming to be sons of Ram Bharos, collateral of Shitla Bux Singh, filed an application that the interest of Shitla Bux Singh after death of Smt. Anari devolved on them by survivorship. It was alleged that sale-deed dated 25th April, 1917 was challenged by Ram Bharos, their father, and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in 1921 in Civil Court. It was held that as Smt. Anari was a Hindu widow the sale-deed shall remain operative during her lifetime. According to them as Anari is now dead the declaration granted by Civil Court has come into force and her vendees who had interest only till her lifetime have no right or title left. The Deputy Director however, did not accept this contention and held petitioners were not sons of Ram Bharos. It has been urged that the order of Deputy Director is manifestly erroneous as there was overwhelming evidence to establish that petitioners were sons of Ram Bharos. According to learned counsel as the finding of Deputy Director is based by ignoring all this evidence it is not a finding of fact and Deputy Director should be directed to decide the revision afresh. The learned counsel further submitted that after Anari's death the land devolved on them by survivorship. In 1937 Sher Bahadur, brother of petitioners had filed suit No. 94 of 1937 on his behalf and on behalf of his brothers for possession against opposite party No. 3 and 4 in respect of 243/1, which was also in dispute before Consolidation Authorities, in which one of the issues framed was whether petitioners were sons of Ram Bharos and the issue was decided in the negative. The Deputy Director relied on it and after considering other evidence on record held that petitioners were no doubt sons of Smt. Naipati, wife of Ram Bharos but not from Ram Bharos but from one Balbhadra with whom she had illicit connection. This is a finding of fact. Even if the Deputy Director ignored certain evidence it does not vitiate the finding as the judgment in civil suit in which petitioners were parties is good piece of evidence and the finding being based on it can not be said to be erroneous. Apart from it even if petitioners are held to be sons of Ram Bharos their claim cannot succeed. It is admitted that sale-deed was executed by Smt. Anari although its operation was limited till Anari's lifetime as she was Hindu widow. Anari died when revision was pending before Deputy Director. The succession opened on her death. At that time she was full owner as she being fixed rate tenant acquired Bhumidhari rights on the date of vesting under Section 18 of Z. A. Act. A Bhumidhar whether male or female has transfer able interest. This enured to the benefit of her transferees, the declaration granted by Civil Court became inoperative due to change in law. The Deputy Director therefore did not commit any error in rejecting petitioner's claim. The petition fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs. .