GANPAT SINGH ALIAS GANNA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, MEERUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. Smt Kastoori, respondent No. 4 was a co-sharer along with the seven appellants and Kundan Singh, the father of respondents 5 to 8, in the khewat of village Kaithala, tehsil and district Bulandshahr. She had a one-third share in the khewat. Khata No. 11, appurtenant to this khewat was a sirholding of 25 plots. Smt. Kastoori had a one-third share in the sir khata, the rest belonged to the appellants and other respondents. The appellants and Kundan Singh field a suit (No. 120 of 1968) in the court of Munsif, Bulandshahr, for an injunction against Smt. Kastoori. The suit related to 9 plots of Khata No. 11. It was prayed in the suit that Smt. Kastoori, the defendant, be restrained from taking possession of the crops standing on the nine plots, in pursuance of the order of the criminal Court or from cutting the crop, and in case the defendant cuts away or takes possession of the crop, a decree for recovery of Rs. 400.00 as damages, and for possession over the plots be granted to the plaintiff. The suit was valued at Rs. l,000.00 which was stated in the plaint to consist of Rs. 400.00 as the price of the crop and Rs. 600.00 being 20 times the annual rent. This suit ended in a compromise decree on 9-12-1950. Under the compromise the plaintiffs were given the right to remain in possession in perpetuity to the exclusion of Smt. Kastoori, on payment of a lump sum of Rs. 5,000.00 and a sum of Rs. 90.00 per annum to her, and after her death to her heirs, Smt. Kastoori was to continue as a co-sharer in the khewat and entitled to receive compensation from the Government on the abolition of Zamindari.

(2.) On 7th July, 1958, Smt. Kastoori, however, executed a deed of sale transferring her rights in the aforesaid nine plots in favour of respondents 5 to 8, (whose father Kundan Singh), was one of the plaintiffs in the suit for injunction.

(3.) On commencement of consolidation operations the appellants filed an objection praying that the name of Smt. Kastoori as well as respondents 5 to 8 should be expunged from khata No. 11 because she lost her sir rights by the compromise decree, whereafter she had no rights which she could validly transfer to respondents 5 to 8. The Consolidation Officer directed that the name of Kastoori be expunged but the names of respondents 5 to 8 be mutated over khata No. 11. On behalf of the respondents it was urged in appeal that the compromise was in the nature of a lease or a licence. The Settlement Officer rejected this submission. He held that the compromise was much more than that because under it Smt. Kastoori had transferred all rights in the sir land and only retained the proprietary rights in the khewat. Smt. Kastoori had a one-third in the sir khata which was represented by the 9 plots involved in the injunction suit. After the compromise Smt. Kastoori had no rights or interest left in the sir khata which she could validly transfer to respondents 5 to 8. On this view, he allowed the appeal and directed the expungement of the names of respondents 5 to 8, in addition to Smt. Kastoori.