RAM KUMAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 15-4-1977 dismissing the Second appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that under section 229-B Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, two suits were filed by the father of the petitioners-Bhagirath against Smt. Jurawan Dullaiya and others claiming to be sole bhumidhars in one suit and co-bhurmdhars in the other suit. According to the case of the plaintiff, Har Prasad died leaving two sons-Sunder Lai and Bhagirath and his widow Hazari Dullaiya. Sunder Lal died in 1930 leaving his widow Jorawan Dullaiya. He died as member of joint Hindu family. THErefore, by survivorship, the plaintiff became owner of the entire zamindari property and was in possession. His name was mutated over half of the share of zamindari and on the other half, the name of Smt. Jurawan Dullaiya was recorded in the revenue papers. On 6-2-1937, the plaintiff's mother as guardian and Smt. Hazari Dullaiya filed a suit No. 50 of 1937 in the court of Munsif against defendant no. 1 regarding half of the share in zamindari. THE suit was decreed in terms of the compromise dated 18-3-1937 wherein it was settled that defendant no. 1 will not alienate the property and she will remain chaste. If she becomes unchaste, the plaintiff shall be entitled to take possession over the land and she will have life interest. It was further alleged that after sometime, the plaintiff became unchaste and she began to live with one Bal Mukund, who had illicit connection with her. She had committed a breach of the compromise decree and lost her title in the land. She executed a fictitious registered sale deed on 8-9-1965 in favour of Haripat, defendant no. 2, which is a void document. Hence the suit was filed for declaration of the plaintiff's title in the land in dispute. Both the suits were contested by defendants denying the title and possession of the plaintiff. It was asserted that Smt. Jurawan Dullaiya was absolute owner of the half share in the land in dispute as it was her sir and Khudkasht before the zamindari abolition and thereafter, she became bhumidhar and she had full right to transfer her share. It was further alleged that the said civil suit was not in respect of the sir and Khudkasht land. Moreover, Sundar Lal and Bhagirath were not members of joint Hindu family as they had separated during their life time. THE defendant no. 1 did not become unchaste and she was in possession throughout.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents contended in reply, that the land in dispute was sir and Khudkasht of which defendant no. 1 became bhumidhar after the enforcement of the Act. He placed reliance on Ramji Dixit v. Bhrigu Nath, 1968 AWR 748 SC wherein it was held that there is nothing in the Act which indicates that when a female who Inherits the right of bhumidhar residuary interest remains vested in any other person. Under the Act she is the owner of the property-the entire estate vested in her and she became entitled to bhumidhari rights after coming into force of the Act. THE learned counsel further contended that even if it is accepted to be correct that the defendant no. 1 remarried, which took place long before the date of vesting of the Act then also, as no suit was filed for ejectment within the prescribed time, the plaintiff's title extinguished. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on Devi died Sri Sia Ram Substituted v. Mohd. Hanif, 1963 AWR 445 wherein it has been held as follows :-