RAM NARAIN SINGH Vs. D.D.C SULTANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition the dispute relates to Khata No. 116 of village Marchha, Pargana Chanda, Tahsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur. In the basic year Khatauni the name of the petitioner Ram Nain Singh son of Bal Krishna Singh was recorded as sole tenure holder of the said holding. An objection was filed by opposite parry No. 4 Mahadeo Singh son of Bhawani Bux Singh, since deceased, claiming to be co-tenure holder along with the petitioner Ram Nain Singh with the allegation that the land of the said holding is ancestral and joint family property. In the alternative he also claimed Sirdari rights by adverse possession. The petitioner contested the case asserting that he is the sole tenure holder and that the objector Mahadeo Singh is not entitled to get half share in the disputed holding in the capacity as a co-tenure holder. It was further asserted that the land of the disputed holding was acquired by his grand father Bindeshwari Singh and on his death it devolved upon his two sons, Anant Prasad and Bal Krishna Singh. Upon death of his father Bal Krishna Singh, the interest in the holding devolved on the petitioner and in the revenue records the name of the petitioner and Anant Prasad Singh were recorded. The petitioner's uncle Anant Prasad Singh died issueless and the petitioner, thus, became sole tenure-holder of the aforesaid disputed holding and his name was recorded as such in the revenue records. It was further asserted that the land in dispute was neither ancestral property nor it was joint family property acquired in the representative capacity by Bindeshwari Singh. Referring to decisions in earlier suits filed by Mahadeo Singh it was asserted that the objector Mahadeo Singh is bound by the decrees passed in the earlier suits and would be estopped from claiming co-tenancy rights in the disputed holding. It was stated that Mahadeo Singh had filed Regular Suit No. 229 of 1953 in the Court of Munsif, South, Sultanpur for declaration regarding his half share in the disputed holding. This suit was filed against the petitioner Ram Nain Singh and his uncle Anant Prasad Singh with the allegation that the land in dispute is ancestral and joint family property and the plaintiff has half share therein. This suit was contested by the petitioner and his uncle denying the plaintiff's alleged claim. It, however, ended in compromise between the parties and the suit was decreed in terms of compromise dated September 21, 1953 wherein plaintiff Mahadeo Singh was given life estate over half share in the land in dispute as Guzaredar with a further stipulation that after death of plaintiff Mahadeo Singh it will revert to the defendants Ram Nain Singh and his uncle and they will come in possession over it. Mahadeo Singh was not given co-tenancy rights in the holding in dispute. Subsequently another suit for partition under Sec. 176 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short, 'the U.P.Z.A and L.R Act ') was filed by Mahadeo Singh against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Officer, Kadipur, Sultanpur. The Suit No. 144 of 1960 was decreed on August 9, 1961 in the terms of decree dated September 21, 1953 passed in aforesaid Regular Suit No. 229 of 1953, which was decided in terms of compromise referred to above. Mahadeo Singh 'filed yet another suit for partition and separation of his alleged half share in the disputed holding in the court of Munsif, South Sultanpur. It was registered as Suit No. 94 of 1964. This suit was decreed, but it was challenged in appeal filed by Ram Nain Singh and his uncle. This appeal No. 6 of 1965 was decided in terms of compromise dated September 10, 1965 wherein Mahadeo Singh was given life estate as Guzaredar Heenhayati. A copy of said compromise is annexed as Annexure No. 1. Subsequently Mahadeo Singh filed vet another Suit No. I of 1973 under Sec. 229-B of the UP.Z.A and L.R AC in the Court of Judicial Officer, Kadipur. Sultanpur. In this suit he prayed that he be declared as co-tenure holder along with the defendant having half share in the land in dispute. This suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated April 12, 1972 on the ground that in view of earlier compromise decree dated September 10, 1965, the plain-??? would not be entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed by him. It was held that the said decree in earlier suit also operates as xxx judicata. The petitioner, thus, asserted that in none of the earlier suits the claim of objector Mahadeo Singh regarding co-tenancy rights in the land was accepted and ha was given only a life estate as Guzaredar in half of the land which was to revert to the, petitioner on the death of Mahadeo Singh. In the said compromise decree Mahadeo Singh was given land as Guzaredar and not as co-tenure holder and he is bound by the (decrees passed in earlier suits.

(2.) The Consolidation Officer after taking evidence of the parties dismissed the objection filed by Mahadeo Singh holding that the land of the disputed holding is not ancestral property and that the objector is bound by the decree referred to above wherein he was given life-estate as Guzaredar Aggrieved by said order, Mahadeo Singh preferred appeal which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer vide order dated July 29, 1974 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. After remand of the case, the Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by Mahadeo Singh vide order dated March 21, 1975 and gave him co-tenancy rights to the extent of half share. This order was passed on the alleged statement of the petitioner Ram Nain Singh recorded on March 21, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 2-A to the counter affidavit. The Consolidation Officer passed a very short non-speaking order saying that the copy of judgment and compromise decree passed in Civil Suit Mo. 6 of 1965 was produced before him and the parties have come to a compromise on its basis as per their statements on record. The name of Mahadeo Singh was, thus, ordered to be recorded on the disputed hold??? with half share therein. Aggrieved by this order, Ram Nain Singh filed appeal which was dismissed vide order dated January 31, 1977 (Annexure No. 7). It was held that on the basis of the, compromise decree dated September 10, 1965 in which Mahadeo Singh was given a right of Guzaredar for life, his name cannot be recorded as Asami tenant. It was further held that on the basis of the statement of the petitioner Ram Nain Singh recorded before the Consolidation Officer on March 21, 1975, the name of Mahadeo Singh was rightly recorded as co-tenure holder on the disputed holding having half share there in. Aggrieved by these orders, Ram Narain Singh preferred revision which was dismissed vide order dated December 21, 1978 (Annexure No. 8). These orders are challenged in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri L.P Misra, urged that the opposite par ties No. 1, 2 and 3 mis-construed the afore said compromise decree dated September 10, 1965 passed in appeal No. 6 of 1965. Referring to the statement dated March 21, 1975, contained in Annexure No. A-2, learned counsel urged that the petitioner in his statement stated that he accepts the compromise filed before the Additional Civil Judge to which parties are bound and according to it half of the land be recorded in the name of Mahadeo and half be recorded in his name. The said statement contained in Annexure No. A-2 is extracted hereunder:

(3.) Learned counsel urged that the peti tioner in his said statement had asserted that the parties are bound by the compromise en tered into between them before the Addi tional Civil Judge and they cannot resile from it, and as such, according to it the entries be made in the name of Mahadeo Singh. Learned counsel pointed out that in said suit petitioner had not admitted Mahadeo Singh to be co-tenure-holder in the holding in dis pute or that he is entitled to half share in that capacity. The petitioner in his statement had vehemently asserted that the parties can not resile from the compromise entered be fore the Additional Civil Judge. Learned counsel, thus, urged that opposite parties No. 1. 2 and 3 have mis-construed the statement of the petitioner while recording the name of Mahadeo Singh as co-tenure holder on the land in dispute merely on the basis of said statement. Referring to the compromise decree dated September 10, 1965. filed in appeal No. 6 of 1965 before the Additional Civil Judge, learned counsel urged that in the said compromise Mahadeo Singh was given half of the land only as a Guzaredar for life time. The opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 have mis-construed the said compromise and wrongly ordered the name of Mahadeo Singh to be recorded as co-tenure holder on its basis. It has been pointed out that nowhere in the compromise Mahadeo was accepted to be a co-tenure holder in the holding in dispute along with the petitioner. In para 1 of the compromise it was specifically mentioned that Mahadeo Singh is given half land as Guzaredar and he will remain in possession during his life time and lifter his death the land will revert in possession of the defendants-appellants Anant Prasad Singh and Ram Nain Singh and they will remain in possession as Sirdars. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff Mahadeo Singh Would not be entitled to transfer the land which Was given to him, in any manner whatsoever. In para 2 of the compromise it was mentioned that defendants Anant Prasad Singh and Ram Nain Singh are Sirdar-tenants of the entire land in suit and the plaintiff would be Guzaredar for life, of half of the land, In para 3 of the compromise it was specifically mentioned that the parties for their convenience have divided the land half and half and will remain in possession thereof in accordance with the rights indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 have erred in directing the name of Mahadeo Singh to be recorded as co-tenure-holder on the holding in dispute on the basis of said compromise. They have mis-construed the compromise and also the statement of the petitioner referred to above. Learned counsel further urged that in earlier litigation Mahadeo Singh had claimed co-tenure holder's rights which he could not establish and accepted to remain in possession as a Guzaredar having life estate therein. He would thus, be bound by the compromise decree and would be estopped from claiming rights as a co-tenure holder in the disputed holding along with the petitioner. He further urged that the opposite party No. 4. Mahadeo Singh, has also not been able to establish that the land was ancestral and joint family property coming down from the time of common ancestor Ram Gulam Singh. The opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 have thus, erred in ordering the name of Mahadeo Singh to be recorded as co-tenure holder by mis-construing the said compromise decree and the statement of the petitioner. It was, thus, urged that the impugned orders passed by opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 deserve to be quashed being per se wrong and illegal.