NAND LAL Vs. BAL MUKUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are 5 : On 2-3-1984 Bal Mukund and Jag Mohan, both brothers, institute a declaratory lawsuit under Sec. 229-B Z.A. and L.R. Act in the court of Assistant Collector, First Class Bansgaon, Gorakhpur. The pleading has set forth a case that land listed in Schedules A, B, C, D and E is ancestral patrimony coming down as such from before Abolition of Zamindari. The claim made is that plaintiffs are sharing possession with different defendants in differing schedules. A serious plea is that land in Schedule A is not exclusive bhumidhari tenure of defendants Puranmasi D/1 and Ram Bali D/2. A geneological table makes intelligible the relationship among the contestants. This shows that grand-father Awtar had right, title and was in possession during his life time. On his death tenure devolves on their father Badloo. On Badloos death they have succeeded to his share in joint tenure in all the lands. Further, Behari had 4 sons : Badri, Awtar, Jasai and Ramdhan. First to die was Badri. Then the next Jasai dies Ramdhans widow was the third to die. In the last Awtar. So their grand father Awtar inherits the share of brothers Ramdhan and Jasai. The defendants Puranmasi and Rambali are sons of Badri. They by a skillful manoeure had let the name of Badri continue in revenue records ; have got the name of Awtar noted ; dies issueless in 1956. Their father Badloo has died on 12-12-1960. More, they were serving outside the city for a long stretch of time; Obviously, they could not join issue in consolidation to search out what has gone there. Lately on 1-12-1989 they became aware of adverse entries on taking khatoni extract from Lekhpal. The relief to declare them co-bhumidhar tenants in possession to the extent 3/4th share in lands in all schedules has prayed the court for.

(2.) On 29-11-1984 defendants Puranmasi and Rambali file a joint written statement refuting Bal Mukunds. Bal Mukunds are not of their family ; their father Badloo was not a son of Awtar. Paragraph 20 of written statement is specific ; Awtar was not married at all. The mother of Badloo had brought him as a Tarail ; she was by caste Chamarin wondering around and living on alms of the villagers Awtar took pity and allowed her to live in his house. Awtar was issue less and hence no question that Badloo is his son. The next serious counter plea is that tenurial rights have undergone final adjudication in consolidation. Since no plea was put forth then and there by Bal Mukunds the suit here and now is barred under Sec. 49, C.H. Act. The relief to flatly dismiss the suit defendants pray the court for.

(3.) On pleadings of parties issues formulated on 2-8-1985. In fitness parties given chance to lead their evidence ; documental and oral. They have made their full representation. On 28-10-1987 Sub-Divisional Officer Bansgaon enters an order decreeing in part the suit for land in all Schedules save for khasra No. 172 area 77 decimal; the direction to record the names of Bal Mukunds as co-tenants in possession.