MAHANAND D Vs. GAON SABHA MANIK PATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.K. Srivastava learned counsel for the appellant. Defendant-respondent No. 1 Gram Sabha Manik Patti, through its Pradhan Manik Patti, Taluqa Chauthar, Tehsil Gyanpur, district Varanasi has been arrayed as respondent No. 1 Sri V.K. Singh has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 but is not present in the Court. Learned standing counsel appears for the respondent No. 2 State of U.P. through Collector. The second appeal is being taken up in the revised list.

(2.) The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against a concurrent judgment and decree dated 14.10.1981 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1971 confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.9.1971 passed by the Munsif Bhado at Gyanpur in Original Suit No. 2 of 1970, Mahanand v. Gram Sabha and Anr.. The sole plaintiff-appellant died and his heirs have been substituted and have already been brought on record on 9.12.2003. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the contesting respondents for restraining them from causing interference in the peaceful possession over the land which is a tank and trees standing on the said land. The suit was dismissed. The appeal was also dismissed by the lower appellate court. The plaint case is plot No. 279 corresponds to plot No. 459 of 1320 settlement year (area measuring 3 bigha 9 biswa 15 biswansi) is the ancestral property 9ver which the plaintiff's grandfather Jangi Yadav was in possession during his life time. The disputed land was in shape of pond which was used for rearing fishes besides, a number of trees on the Bhita of the pond planted by the predecessors of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession since last more than 60 years. The father of the plaintiff died during life time of Jangi as such after the death of Jangi in the year 1952, the plaintiff succeeded. One Ravi Saran filed a suit in respect of the disputed property against Jangi Yadav which was numbered as Original Suit No. 312 of 1924. Jangi Yadav claimed his title and possession in the said suit which was however decreed, appeal was filed by Jangi Yadav in the chief court which was numbered as Appeal No. 57 of 1925. The appeal was allowed and Jangi Yadav was held to be owner of the disputed pond. It was also shown that fourteen trees were planted by him. In another proceedings one Hubraj filed a suit under Section 229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act against the plaintiff and defendant in the present suit. Gaon Sabha did not contest the suit and did not file any written statement. The said suit ended in a compromise dated 25.4.1961 and plaintiff was found to be owner and bhumidhar of the suit property. Gaon Sabha did not challenge the said compromise decree.

(3.) The consolidation proceedings started and disputed property was recorded in column No. 6, consequently the name of the plaintiff was expunged. It is admitted that there was no contest during consolidation proceedings. After the name of plaintiff was expunged the Sabhapati of Gaon Sabha started causing interference in the plaintiffs possession in the month of June, 1969. The plaintiff gave a notice under Section 106 of the Panchayat Raj Act and under Section 80, C.P.C. to the defendant on 20.10.1969, which was duly served. The notice was replied denying the title and possession of the plaintiff which led the institution of the present suit. The Gaon Sabha contested the suit denying the plaint allegation alleging that land in dispute is the property of the Gaon Sabha in the shape of pond and the plaintiff has no concern whatsoever and is not in possession and it was further claimed that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) and the notice was said to be invalid. A number of issues were framed. Issue No. 4 was : 'whether the suit is barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act ?' This issue was decided separately on 17.10.1970. The aforesaid issue was decided in negative and finding was arrived at that the tank and trees on the Bhita are not covered by definition of "land" as defined in the Act. However, the plaintiff-appellant examined himself as P.W. 1, Ramdeo as P.W. 2 and Pardeshi as P.W. 3. The defendant examined as D.W. 1 Sher Bahadur Pradhan, Ganpat as D.W. 2, Raghunath as D.W. 3 and Mata Saran as D.W. 4. The suit was dismissed on 17.11.1971 against which Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1971 was filed in the Court of IInd Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi which was also dismissed on 14.10.1981. The second appeal was admitted on a number of substantial questions of law on 9.9.1982. The counsel for the appellant Sri B.K. Srivastava has raised as many as 10 questions of law but at the time of argument only four questions of law has been pressed before this Court which are quoted below : (1) Whether the suit is hit by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act ? (2) Whether the decree passed by the competent court is not binding on parties ? (3) Whether a finding recorded by the competent court will not operate as res judicata in subsequent suit ? (4) Whether the trees and property in dispute will not be deemed to be settled with appellant under Section 9 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act ? The trial court had decided the issue No. 4 in negative holding that talab and trees which is the subject matter of the dispute are not covered within the definition of the 'land' and as such the suit was not barred. The lower appellate court however recorded a contrary finding on the said issue. The counsel for the appellant has argued that without considering the reasons and finding of the trial court, the lower appellate court arrived at a contrary finding holding the plot in question as 'land' and consequently held that the suit is barred by Section 49 of the Act. It was vehemently argued that the findings of the lower court on issue No. 4 does not stand the test of judgment of reversal. Reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellant in Mahavir Jain v. Additional District Judge, Jhansi and Ors., 1985 (1) ARC 368. This Court had laid down that once the appellate court records a finding contrary to the one arrived at by the prescribed authority, he has to give reasons specifically and discuss the law as to why the appellate court is not in agreement to the findings of the prescribed authority. The second submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the findings on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the effect that both the courts have recorded a finding against the plaintiff-appellant regarding the ownership of the disputed properly. However, the courts have agreed that the trees belong to the plaintiff but have recorded a finding that the pond and trees will vest in Gram Sabha under Section 117 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. These findings have been assailed by the counsel for the appellant on the basis of argument that the courts below have failed to record a positive finding as to whether the tank was in existence prior to the date of vesting or it came in existence at a subsequent stage. The prior litigations which have not been disputed by the Gaon Sabha admittedly show that the tank exists prior to the date of vesting and continues to be in possession of the appellant and his predecessor and would not vest in Gaon Sabha. The plot in question which is in shape of tank and a number of trees planted by the predecessor of the plaintiff on the bhita are in continuous possession for more than 100 years and on the date of vesting, it would stand settled, under Section 9 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. There is no finding arrived at by both the courts below where it was specifically pleaded and evidenced that water logging continues for the whole year and Singhara is grown in the said tank, as such the plaintiff has acquired Sirdari rights. Reliance has been placed on another decision of this Court in the case of Ram Nath and Ors. v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad and Ors., 1980 AWC 134 where this Court had held that it was necessary for the Courts to record a finding as to whether tank was in existence on the date of vesting or it was on a subsequent date. If the tank was in the tenancy of the plaintiff prior to the date of vesting, the tenure holder could not be divested of his right unless the proceedings under Zamindari Abolition Act are initiated, the pond would not vest in Gaon Sabha. Another decision relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is Farid Ahmad and Ors. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Azamgarh and Ors., 1978 AWC 507. The courts below have not taken into consideration the previous litigations in respect of the same disputed property in the year, 1924 and thereafter 1961. It is noteworthy that during the consolidation proceedings no one came forward to file any objection and proceedings ended at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. It has further been argued by counsel for the appellant that the plot in question was given by Maharaja of Varanasi in the year, 1910 to the predecessors of the plaintiff-appellant. This was never sought to be cancelled either by the State or Gaon Sabha. No proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 where the period of limitation for initiating ejectment proceedings of such occupant is provided under Section 172 is only one year. In absence of any steps taken by the defendant-respondents, they cannot have any claim whatsoever. It was also stated that Agra Tenancy Act, 1976 prescribes the period of limitation of one year under Section 84 of the Act for ejecting a tenant and limitation of 12 years under Section 24 for ejecting a trespasser but no such steps were taken. Great emphasis was laid on the judgment of the previous litigation relating to the years, 1924 and 1961 in respect of the same land. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K.M. Krishnaiah, 1998 (2) AWC 1240 (SC). The Apex Court had stated in paragraph 9 of the said judgment as under : "In our view, this contention is clearly contrary to the rulings of this Court as well as those of the Privy Council. In Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 379, speaking on behalf of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, Venkatarama Ayyar, J. held that a judgment not inter partes is admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as evidence of an assertion of a right to property in dispute. A contention that judgments other than those falling under Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act were not admissible in evidence was expressly rejected. Again B.K. Mukherjee, J. (as he then was) speaking on behalf of a Bench of four learned Judges in Sital Das v. Sant Ram and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 606. held that a previous judgment not inter partes, was admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as a 'transaction' in which a right to property was 'asserted' and 'recognised'. In fact, much earlier. Lord Lindley held in the Privy Council in Dinamoni v. Brajmohini, 1902 ILR 29 Cal 190 (198) (PC), that a previous judgment, not inter partes was admissible in evidence under Section 13 to show who the parties were, what the lands in dispute were and who was declared entitled to retain them. The criticism of the judgment in Dinamoni v. Brajmohini and Ram Chakerbati v. Ram Narain Singh, 1895 ILR 22 Cal 533 (PC), by Sir John Woodroffe in his commentary on the Evidence Act (1931, P. 181), was not accepted by Lord Blanesburgh in Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sunder, AIR 1934 PC 157 (61 IA 286).