LAKHPATI Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Sarad Dwivedi, for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Yadav, for contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer, dated 23.4.1989, dismissing the objection of the petitioner and Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 28.7.1989, allowing the revision of Thakurdin and others and setting aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, dated 22.1.1985, in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE dispute relates to plot 1354 (1 -5 -0 bigha) of village Khalispur Gopalpur, pargana Aldemau, district Sultanpur, which was recorded in the names of Lakhpati (the petitioner), Rajdeo, Thakurdin, Jhuri and Mangal (now represented by respondents -3 to 5) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), in basic consolidation record. Smt. Lakhpati filed an objection for deleting the names of the respondents from the land in dispute. It has been stated by the petitioner that Sita Ram son of Ram Badan, Ram Murat son of Ram Prasad, Ram Lochan and Ram Sabad sons of Darbari Lal were original grove holders of the land in dispute having 1/4th share each. Sita Rama and Ram Murat executed a registered sale deed dated 20.4.1959 in respect of their 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner and her name was mutated in the revenue record on its basis. Thereafter, Ram Lochan executed an unregistered sale deed dated 8.1.1961 in respect of his 1/4 share and Ram Sabad executed an unregistered sale deed dated 19.12.1968 in respect of his 1/4 share. Ram Lochan, for himself and as guardian of Ram Sabad surreptitiously executed a registered sale deed dated 16.5.1961 in respect of their 1/2 share, in favour of Mahabir, father of the respondents, although he had already sold his share to the petitioner and had no authority to sell the share of Ram Sabad. Sale deed dated 16.5.1961 is void and no right can be derived by the respondents on its basis.

(3.) THE case was tried by Consolidation Officer. The petitioner did not enter the witness box and examined Ram Awadh as her witness and filed original sale deed dated 7.1.1961 and copy of written statement of Ram Lochan dated 20.10.1970 allegedly filed in the mutation case, admitting execution of sale deed dated 7.1.1961. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 23.4.1982 held that Mahadeo filed mutation case on 6.5.1970 while the petitioner filed mutation case on 25.6.1970. Sale consideration of Rs. 400/ - was shown in the sale deed dated 16.5.1961, while sale consideration of Rs. 95/ - was shown in the sale deed dated 7.1.1961, which shows that only to avoid registration sale consideration of less than Rs. 100/ - was shown. Original sale deed dated 19.12.1970 was not filed. On these findings objection of the petitioner was dismissed.