JAG NARAIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN consolidation proceedings the Petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 and claimed that he was grove holder on the date of vesting and acquired rights of bhumidhari under Section 18 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act I of 1951. His claim was contested by the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 8. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection. In appeal it was held that the Petitioner was Asami. The Deputy Director of Consolidation modified that order and held that he was only a licensee.

(2.) THE facts found are that there was a mortgage in 1893 in favour of the Petitioner's ancestor. Subsequently the mortgagor sold the land in 1901 with the result that interest of mortgagor and mortgagee both rested in Petitioners. It appears, there was again a mortgage and in 1930 the mortgagor filed suit for redemption which was decreed in 1931. In 1932 the decree was executed and the mortgagee took possession. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation both have found that the Petitioner continued to be in possession despite the execution of decree in 1932 but it has been held that the Petitioner could not acquire any rights as mortgage having been of occupancy holding he was either Asami or licensee. It is not in dispute that at present the land is in the shape of grove and it was grove on the date of vesting. The question is what right the Petitioner had after 1932 and whether by virtue of remaining in possession he acquired any rights under U.P. Tenancy Act and thereafter under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It cannot be disputed that once suit for redemption was decreed and the decree was executed in 1932 the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee came to an end. The continuance of possession thereafter cannot be considered to be that of a mortgagee or a licensee. It appears, even in 1932 when the decree was executed Petitioner had planted large number of trees and therefore one of the conditions was that he shall have right over the trees for certain time but once the decree was executed and possession was taken the right of Petitioner with consent of opposite -parties came to an end. His continuance in possession thereafter cannot be considered to be with the consent of opposite -parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, therefore committed an error in recording a finding that he was Asami or licensee once it was found that he was in possession. The right and title of opposite parties stood extinguished by lapse of time.