YOGENDRA VIKRAM SINGH Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR proper appreciation of the facts, it is necessary to bear in mind the following pedigree which is admitted :- Thakur Bahadur Singh Ram Adhin Singh - Smt. Umrai (Defdt. No. 1 deceased) ____I____________________ I J Jagannath Baksh Singh Late Vishwanath Singh (From the first wife) (from the second wife Smt. Umrai) Krishna Kumar Singh I (Defendant No. 5) I ______________I___ _ -

(2.) YOGENDRA Vikram Virendia Vikram Surendra Vikram Singh Singh, Defdt. No. 2 Singh, defdt. No. 3 Defdt. No. 4.

(3.) THE only other point made by the learned counsel is that the respondent-plaintiff was debarred from challenging the title of Smt. Umrai as bhumidhar in view of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the plaintiff never raised an objection challenging her right in consolidation proceedings and never asserted any Iright in himself. In my judgment the bar of Section 49 does not operate as u/Section 27 (2) it is open to the respondent to show that the entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act showing Smt. Umrai as bhumidhar was not true. Section 27 (2) was substituted by U. P. Act 12 of 1965 and is in these terms : - "All entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true unless the contrary is proved." It is clear from this provision that although normally a presumption of correctness of the entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act attaches to such entries, but it is a rebuttable presumption. This presumption has, to my mind, been adequately rebutted by the respondents when they show that the consolidation authorities did not apply their minds to the provisions contained in Section 11 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. I find no force in this submission also which is repelled- See Jagdeo v. Lauhar, 1970 AWR 532.