LAL CHANDRA Vs. UPAR CIVIL JUDGE JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the. order passed by Munsif, Shahganj, allowing the application for temporary injunction of the plaintiff-respondent, restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering with his possession by order, dated 24-1-1994 and the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 4-1- 1995, affirming the said order in appeal and further remanding the matter.

(2.) THE dispute relates to plot No. 747-A area 0. 64 acre, and 7747-B area 0. 7 acre. Sri Bhagwan Singh, Ram Murat, Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh and Shambhu Nath Singh were co-shares of these plots each having l/4th share. Shambhu Nath Singh transferred his l/4th share in favour of plaintiff-respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by registered sale-deed dated 20-1-1978 in respect of the land in dispute. Ram Murat Singh transferred his l/4th share in favour of Smt. Abha Raji, respondent No. 5 by registered sale-deed dated 25-7-1980. Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh transferred his l/4th share in favour of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 by registered sale-deed dated 28-1-1979. Sri Bhagwan Prasad Singh also transferred his l/4th share in favour of the petitioner and respondents No. 8 and 9 by registered sale-deed dated 4-4-1981 and on the basis of the registered sale-deeds, Naib Tehsildar mutated the names of all the vendees in the revenue records on 1-5-1980 and 15-6-1981.

(3.) THE trial court came to the conclusion' after considering the material evidence on record that all the co-sharer has sold their rights and title in the plots in dispute and in the sale-deeds they had specified the area which were sold to the vendees and they were also delivered possession of such plots. Amin was also directed to make local inspection and he submitted a report which indicated that the plaintiff was in possession over the area of the plot in dispute and such area was also covered in the sale- deed which was executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. THE trial court accordingly granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-respondents. THE appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that 10. "the second submission of learned counsel for. the petitioner is that during consolidation proceedings an objection was- raised by the petitioner for correction of the map on the basis of the possession of the parties. THE Consolidation Officer by Order dated 8-11-1989 directed to make amendment in the map on the basis of the possession of the parties as found on inspection. THE plaintiff-respondents filed an appeal against the said order before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on the ground that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was ex pane and the map has been amended taking the version of the petitioner about his alleged possession on a specific portion of the plot. THE appeal has yet not been decided. THE objection raised by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer was regarding correction of the map which, according to him, was prepared on the basis of his possession. He never sought any partition of the plot in suit. His case was also that he was in possession of the portion of land specified in his sale-deed. THE rights and title of the land in question was not involved before the Consolidation Officer. 11. In Jaggu v. Patandin, 1980 RD 53, it was held that though the map was incorrectly prepared during consolidation operation, the Civil Court can grant injunction restraining the parties in interfering one's possession as found. on the spot. THE Civil Court can read the map as it ought to have been drawn rather than as it is on proof of mistake in its drawing by the Consolidation Authorities. Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land for which notification has been issued under the said Act by any court other than Consolidation Authorities. THE map is to be prepared on the basis of rights of parties as determined by the Consolidation Authorities. THEre is no presumption of correctness with regard to the map. Section 27 (2), of the Act provides that all -entries in the record-of-rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary' is proved. Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act raises presumption with, regard to all the entries in the record-of-rights prepared in accordance with 'the provisions of sub-section (1) of the Act and such entries shall " be presumed to be correct until the-contrary is proved. This shows that even the presumption of correctness, of the record of rights prepared by the Consolidation Authorities is rebuttable. THEre is no presumption of correctness with regard to the map. 12. In Anil Khan y. Ram Prasad, 1981 ALJ 271, it was held that on the basis of wrong entries in the map it is not open for the Civil Court to say that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit and to refrain from deciding it on merits. 13. THE Civil Court has a jurisdiction to find out as to which party is in possession 'of the land in question and the mere wrong preparation of the map will not bar the court from finding out as to which of the parties is in possession of the disputed land. 14. In view of the above,, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .