RAUTIYA Vs. NAND KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 12-5-1997 passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad in revision No. 15 of 1996-97 dismissing the revision filed against the order dated 30-9-1991 passed by the SDO, Manjhanpur, decrecing suit No. 20/41/146 of 1990-91 filed under Section 229-B, Z. A. Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Hari Shankar, Nand Kishore and Jag Mohan S/o Shiv Mangal filed a suit under Section 229-B, Z.A. Act stating that plot No. 636 originally belonged to Mst. Govindi who had two daughters Smt. Manni and Smt. Gajji. During her lifetime she executed a gift deed in favour of Ram Khelawan and Shivmangal who are sons of Smt. Manni and Ram Nath and Belai who in son of Bhabhuti and Smt. Gajji. As per this gift deed Shivmangal, Ram Khelawan and Belai inherited 1/3rd of land owned by Mst. Govindi and during consolidation separate chaks were carved out to each of them; that the land in dispute was allotted to Belai who died issue less and hence his mother Smt. Gajji inherited the said plot No. 636 who in turn executed sale deed on 11-3-1987 in favour of plaintiffs but wrongly the name of Rautiya has been recorded in revenue record which should be expunged and the plaintiffs should be declared bhumidhar on the basis of sale-deed. Notices were issued to the defendants. The defendant No. 1, Smt. Gajji, filed written statement accepting the claim of plaintiffs. the trial Court decreed the suit vide its order dated 30-9-1991; against this order of trial Court Rautiya filed restoration application which was dismissed by the trial Court on 2-3-1996. Against this order of trial Court, revision was filed which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner.

(3.) ON the other hand the counsel for opposite party argued that originally the land belonged to Smt. Gajji who executed a gift deed in favour of Shivmangal, Ram Khelawan and Belai. Belai died issue less and hence Smt. Gajji inherited the land owned by Belai who executed sale-deed in favour of respondents, Kallu or his daughter Rautiya has no claim over the disputed land which was owned by Belai and Rautiya's name was wrongly recorded in Khatauni; hence the order of SDO decreeing the suit is correct. He further argued that two revisions have been filed before this Court and it is not clear which revision is being passed by the revisionist.