DEOTADIN Vs. MAHADEI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deotadin alias Baba son of Bhagwati of village Bhuta Kalan, Pargana Kheepraha, District Jaunpur tiled second appeal No. 244 of 1972-73 on Jan. 8, 1973 against the judgment and decree dated Oct. 23, 1972 of Additional Commissioner, Varanasi passed in appeal against the judgment and decree dated Feb. 6, 1971 of Assistant Collector 1st Class, Jaunpur, in a suit under Sec. 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Bhagvati Singh, father of the appellant, filed a suit under Sec. 229-B Z.A. and L.R. Act in respect of plot No. 171 (72 Dec.) correspondent to old plot No. 30911 (72 Dec.) for declaration of sole Bhumidhari rights as grove holder with the allegations that the land originally belonged to Maha Raja Vibhuti Narain Singh of Ramnagar, Varanasi that he transferred the land through registered sale-deed dated Sept. 18, 1959 that his name was recorded in mutation proceedings that during consolidation in Extracts of forms C.H. 5, 9, 11, and 23 his name was recorded that defendants No. 3 to 10 have no concern with the land, that defendants have intimate relations with the Lekhpal and at the instant of ancestors of defendants No. 3 to 10, the Lekhpal came to him and obtained his signature on a blank piece of paper and a form representing that in his capacity as Pradhan his signatures were left on some papers that in collusion with the Lekhpal and the Tahsil officials names of defendants aforesaid were added on the land that he came to know of the said act in Feb. 1967 that since defendants have no concern with the land their names are wrongly recorded, hence the suit.

(3.) Sant Prasad, Ram Prasad, Devi Prasad, Mata Prasad and Suryanath filed a written statement through Sri Ram Chandra Shukla, Advocate guardian of minor saying that the grove was the ancestral property of the parties, that it did no belong to Maharaja Benaras that the land was declared surplus under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and if any sale-deed executed by the said Maharaja thereafter, it is not binding that the land was also settled with the parties on July 1, 1967 after it was declared surplus and plaintiff had admitted claim of the defendants, and such the suit is barred by Sec. 115 of Evidence Act. Written statement on similar lines was filed by Mahadeo and Bachai Singh adding that the land was acquired by Chaunharji Singh, common ancestor of the parties.