SITLA BAKHSH SINGH Vs. KR SURENDRA BIKRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Raja Sitla Bakhsh Singh, defendant 1 in a suit for possession of a house situate in village Payer Khas, district Gonda. The suit was tiled against him by the plaintiff-respondent Kunwar Surendra Vikram Singh, The plaintiff brought the suit for possession of the house on the allegation that one Rani Sarfaraz Kunwar was the owner of the property in dispute. She gifted the same to defendant a Rani Jairaj Kunwar by a gift deed dated 9-3-1899, and the said defendant 3 Rani Jairaj Kunwar gifted it to the plaintiff on 18-4-1946. Defendant 1, Sitla Bakhsh Singh and his wife defendant 2 were in unlawful possession of the said property and the plaintiff prayed for possession of the said house.

(2.) The main contesting defendant in the case was Sitla Bakhsh Singh. Ho raised a number of defences. He denied the right of Rani Sarfaraz Kunwar to gift the property in question in favour of Rani Jairaj Kunwar. He further alleged that the property was held by Rani Jairaj Kunwar as a widow of Raja Udai Narain Singh along with Rani Jaswant Kuar, who was the co-widow of Raja Udai Narain Singh and a joint owner of the said property. The gift of Jairaj Kunwar without the consent of the co-widow was bad in law. The other defences raised by the defendant 1 are not relevant at this stage of the case.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by both the Courts and this second appeal has been filed by defendant 1 Sitla Bakhsh Singh. The main ground advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this Court is that the house in dispute has not been proved to be the property of Rani Sarfaraz Kunwar. It cannot be doubted that Rani Sarfaraz Kunwar was the taluqdariya of Bhabhnipayar taluqa. Her name is entered in List I at No. 177 and in List II at No. 75. These lists were prepard under Section 8, Oudh Estates Act (l of 1869). In Section 10 of the said Act it is laid down that the Court shall take judicial notice of the said lists and shall regard them as conclusive evidence that the persons named therein are taluqdars or grantees. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in spite of the said provision of law contained in Section 10 it is open to the Court to enquire into the correctness of the said entry. In my opinion, the provision of law embodied in Section 10 clearly bars the Court from any enquiry into the ownership or right of the person whose name is entered in the list to hold the taluqa or to possess the same. Section 10 does not state that the inclusion of a person's name in the said list merely raises a presumption of ownership in his favour. On the other hand it states, that the existence of his name in the said list should be taken to be the conclusive evidence of the fact that he was a taluqdar or a grantee as contemplated by the Act. I cannot find any merit in this part of the argument of the appellant's learned counsel.