HANOMAN Vs. BANSRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Hari Om Singh and Sri Shiv Dayal Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.A. Siddiqui and Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for contesting respondents. This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings pertaining to title. Earlier also the matter had come to this court in the form of Writ Petition No.2373 of 1975, Hanoman and others Vs. Bansraj and others. The said writ petition was finally decided on 23.02.1981 and matter was remanded to the D.D.C. to decide the same again after quashing his earlier order dated 21.07.1975. Copy of earlier judgment of this court dated 23.02.1981 is Annexure -10 to the writ petition. Thereafter, Revision No.138, Hanoman and others Vs. Bansraj and others was heard by D.D.C. Faizabad and dismissed on 11.09.1984. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. Short relevant pedigree is given below (as also mentioned in the earlier judgment of the High Court): <FRM>JUDGEMENT_43_TLALL0_2014.htm</FRM>

(2.) PETITIONERS had disputed the pedigree also, however in the earlier judgment, this court clearly held that pedigree was proved and the said question should not be reopened by the D.D.C. The dispute relates to the agricultural land comprised in khtata No.8, 12, 55 and 69. In the basic year when consolidation started, the name of Phoolraji was recorded as co -tenant in all the khatas. Over some of the property, the name of Smt. Raj Dei was also entered. One of the points raised at the earlier stage was that according to the Phoolraji and her daughter Raj Dei, Phoolraji had surrendered some of the agricultural plots in favour of her daughter Smt. Raj Dei, which was not permissible in law. In the earlier judgment of this court it was held that there was no question of surrender. However, that point does not survive as just after about two years of the earlier judgment of this Court, Smt. Phoolraji died on 11.12.1982 and her property was inherited by her daughter Smt. Raj dei. Earlier compromise had taken place before the Consolidation Officer, however in the said compromise Hanoman was not party, hence the order passed on the basis of the compromise was set aside. In the impugned judgment by the D.D.C. dated 11.09.1984, it is mentioned that order passed on the basis of compromise was set aside due to the reason that one of the objectors, i.e. petitioner No.4 was minor. In the impugned judgment, it is also mentioned that order passed in the compromise was set aside but the compromise was not set aside. It has further been mentioned therein that Hanoman challenged the compromise on the ground that he was not signatory, however he was also not signatory to the objections and objections had been filed by his brothers, i.e. petitioners No.2 & 3 on his behalf also.

(3.) AT the earlier stage, through judgment and order dated 23.02.1981, High Court remanded the matter only for consideration of patta, which had been filed by the petitioners before S.O.C. Regarding that in the impugned judgment dated 11.09.1984, the D.D.C. held that patta on the face of it appeared to be spurious and fake and the physical condition of the patta did not denote that it was about 60 years old and it was also not patta but only kabuliyat. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioners has argued that in the earlier judgment of this court, High Court had held that the said document was composite document and it was patta as well as kabuliyat. Before Zamindari Abolition, sometimes it happened that out of several male and female co -tenants only the names of males were entered in the revenue record. However, if females were not co -tenants then entry of their names as co -tenants were almost unheard of. After all ours is a male dominated, patriarchal society. This characteristic was more predominant in early twentieth century (Husband of Phool Raji died in 1928). The alleged patta/ kabuliyat is dated 16.03.1919, however right from 1919 till Zamindari Abolition and thereafter till the basic year that patta/ kabuliyat, copy of which is Annexure -1 to this writ petition was not produced anywhere. If petitioners or their ancestors were so much conscious of the importance of that, that they kept it preserved for about 50 years then there is absolutely no reason as to why they did not get their names mutated on the basis of that to the exclusion of the name of Smt. Phoolraji. Accordingly, the finding in the impugned order that the document, which was produced as patta was fake and spurious. Opposite party No.2, Raj Dei died on 27.11.1999.