MUSE Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THIS Writ Petition arises out of a suit for declaration filed by Bhagwan Das and others, the plaintiff-respondents, claiming to be sole tenure holders of the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendants-petitioners claiming to be co-tenure-holders along with the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs' case, the land in dispute was settled with Bhagwan Das whereas according to the case of the defendants, it was settled with Bhagwan Das and Balwanta, father of the petitioners, jointly, who were the members of the joint Hindu family. From the case of the parties it is clear that both the parties set up the case on the basis of settlement by landholder. Therefore, the main question for consideration in this case is whether the land in dispute was settled with Bhagwan Das alone or it was settled with Bhagwan Das along with Balwanta ? Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, it appears, discarded the oral evidence but relying on the order passed in CLRD proceeding dismissed the suit on the finding that both plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 are co-sirdars of the suit plots along with other co-sharers. The first appellate court affirmed the decree of the trial court. From the judgment of the first appellate court, it appears that reference was made to the oral evidence of both the parties and finding was recorded to the effect that the name of Bhagwan Das was entered in a representative capacity as representing Balwanta also. THIS finding, it appears, is based on the fact that the family was joint. Consequently, the entry was also presumed to be in representative capacity. However, the Board of Revenue disagreed with the finding of the Additional Commissioner and held that the name of the plaintiff has been wrongly interpreted by the courts below in the representative capacity. According to the Board of Revenue, the plaintiff-respondent was the sole tenure-holder.