RAM PAL SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of hearing no one appeared for contesting respondent no.4, Gulab Singh. Accordingly only the arguments of Sri U.S.Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner were heard.

(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of Suit Nos.119/77/273/78, Gulab Singh vs. Soveran Singh and others instituted by respondent no.4 Gulab Singh under Section 229 B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act before SDO/Assistant Collector, First Class, Sitapur. Plaintiff respondent no.4, Gulab Singh claimed that he was son of Chhote Lal Singh who was real brother of Soveran Singh defendant no.1 in the suit. Original petitioner Ram Pal Singh (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) was son of Soveran Singh and defendant no.2 in the suit. Plaintiff claimed that over the agricultural land in dispute included in Khata Nos. 266, 241 and 67 was ancestoral property and it was entered in the name of Soveran Singh alone wrongly and plaintiff was also co sharer there of as it was ancestoral property (plaintiff being nephew of Soveran Singh defendant no.1). There was also a third brother, Balvan Singh who died issue less. Plaintiff further asserted that he was born on 17.3.1947 and his father Chhote Lal had died in 1955. The defendants nos. 1 and 2 contended that firstly plaintiff was not son of that Chhote Lal who was real brother of Soveran Singh and secondly during consolidation operations plaintiff was major and as he did not raise dispute at that time hence claim was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(3.) THE trial court had held that when consolidation was continuing, plaintiff had become major. This finding was recorded on the basis of voter list of 1974 showing the age of the plaintiff to be 33 years. Accordingly trial court held that plaintiff was born in 1941 hence in 1959 he became major and at that time consolidation was continuing. Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue held that not much reliance could be placed upon the age mentioned in voter list. They held that according to the date of birth mentioned in the birth register and other evidence it was proved that plaintiff was minor during consolidation proceedings. They also held that consolidation appeared to have taken place around 1960. However they also mentioned that no record relating to Section 4(2) or Section 52 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act notifications was filed. They also held that plaintiff was son Chhote who was real brother of Soveran. Regarding limitation lower appellate court and Board of Revenue held that it appeared that defendant no.1 from his conduct assured the plaintiff that property would be given to him hence suit was filed quite late. The suit was filed on 31.1.1974. Even if plaintiff's version regarding his age is taken to be correct still in 1974 he would be 27 years of age. The delay of 9 years after becoming major was not explained. The finding that it appeared that assurance was given by Soveran Singh that property would be given to the plaintiff is firstly extremely vague secondly it is not based on any evidence and thirdly it would not make any difference to the limitation.