KALLOO Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prem Prakash Chaudhary, Advocate assisted by Sri Harish Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and learned Standing counsel for the StateRespondent.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit No. 414 under Sec. 229 B/ 209 of U.P. Z.A. and L. R. Act in respect to Plot Nos. 173, 28, 29, 30, 163, 164, 167, 169, 171, 179, 145 and 33 of Village Machhariya, Tehsil Karwi, District-Chitrakut on the ground that property in dispute has been acquired by petitioner's father Ram Dass who was the sole Bhumidhar of the plot in dispute. The further ground taken in the suit was that after death of Ram Dass Smt. Dulariya, widow of Ram Dass, re-married with Ram Kishun, the brother of Ram Dass and petitioner being son of deceased Ram Dass is the heir as provided under U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The further allegation in the plaint was that Smt. Dulariya was re-married thus, she lost all the interest, if any, over the property in dispute. Smt. Dulariya contested the proceeding of aforementioned suit denying the plaint allegations.

(3.) The trial Court by Judgment and Decree dtd. 27/9/1990 decreed the plaintiff's suit No. 414 in respect to all the plots except plot No.33 under Sec. 229B/209 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. Trial Court while decreeing the plaintiff's suit has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence filed by the parties and recorded finding of fact while deciding the Issue No.2 that plaintiff (Kalloo) is son of deceased Ram Dass. Trial Court while deciding the Issue Nos. 1 and 3 has recorded finding of fact that plaintiff (Kalloo) is Bhumidhar with transferable right of the plot in dispute and Smt. Dulariya had no right to sell the property because she was not recorded as Bhumidhar of the plot in dispute.