PRABHU DAYAL Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One third share of House Nos. 491, 491/1 & 492/2 and one third share of 9.51 acre of Bhumidhari land situated in Dandia Pura, Jhansi was sold by Nathua, Ram Lal and Param sons of Bhonde to Manohar Lal son of Mohan Lal vide sale deed executed on 5.11.1966 registered on 8.11.1966. The said property constitute one third share of Nathua and others mentioned herein above who were recorded as Bhumidhar. The said property was partitioned by sons of Mohan Lal by executing partition deed dated 6.11.1968 which was registered on 23.11.1968. By virtue of the said partition deed Damodar Das son of Mohan Lal got in his share whole of House No. 491, 491/1, 492/2 and whole of one third share of the land 9.51 acre which are 26 in numbers. By a separate registered sale deed executed on 24.12.1974 the land was transferred in the name of present petitioners which bears the signature of Param and Ram Lal as witnesses who initially sold this land to Manohar Lal in the year 1966 and since then they are in possession over the same. It is also revealed from the writ petition that Nathua, Ram Lal and Pram were tenants of Damodar Das in the house and after the execution of the sale deed they became tenants of the petitioners. On account of non payment of rent they were dispossessed from the land after decree of their eviction was passed by the competent court on 6.5.1976 in J.S.C. Suit No. 163 of 1975 filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, Original Suit bearing O.S. No. 69 of 1981 for declaration with a prayer for mandatory injunction was filed before the Civil Judge, Jhansi by the Nathua, Ram Lal and Param against the petitioners Manohar Lal and Damodar Das and others for seeking the cancellation of the sale deeds executed on 5.11.1966 and 24.12.1974.The said suit was tried after framing as many as nine issues and was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 2.8.1984. Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties held as under:-

(2.) Against the judgement and order dated 2.8.1984, a Civil Appeal was preferred by Nathua, Ram Lal and Param against the petitioners in the Court of District Judge, Jhansi, which stood dismissed vide order dated 8.9.1986 passed by Ist Addl. District Judge, Jhansi. Thereafter, a review petition was filed against the said judgement in which it was contended that the the application of the appellants plaintiffs regarding treating them to be Bhumidhar was rejected vide order dated 27.1.1967 which came to the knowledge of the appellants/plaintiffs after passing of the appellate order. It is said that since the document was not available at the time of dismissal of the Civil Appeal it be taken on record and accordingly the judgement be reviewed. This plea was rejected on the ground that there was a clear recital in the sale deed that the plaintiffs/appellants were Bhumidhars. Second appeal bearing Second Appeal No. 356 of 1987 against the judgement and order dated 2.8.1984 passed in Original Suit No. 69 of 1981 and the Judgement and Decree dated 8.9.1986 passed in Civil Appeal No. 198 of 1985 was also filed which also stood dismissed vide order dated 12.12.1991 by this Court.

(3.) After having failed to have the sale deeds cancelled, a Civil Suit under Section 229 B of the UPZA & LR Act bearing Suit No.25 of 1995-96 was filed by the private respondents before the revenue Court in respect of the same land which was subject matter of dispute in Original Suit No. 69 of 1981 against the petitioners. The main contention raised in this Suit was that the ancestors of the private respondents had not acquired the Bhumidhari rights but were registered as 'Sirdar' with non transferable rights. Any sale deed executed by said siradars was not permissible under the Act and consequently any transaction effected thereby would be void ab-intio. Objections were raised and after examining the pleading of the parties Revenue Court framed issues which are as under: