RAGHO RAM Vs. SMT. RAO RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge as important questions of law were involved. One Nanhey had two sons, Sheocharan and Ganga Prasad. Sheo Charan died in February, 1952 and Ganga Prasad claiming to be the heir of Sheo Charan filed the present suit for a declaration that he was a cobhumidhar with Smt. Rao Rani who was the widow of Tulsiram a collateral of his father Nanhey. After the death of Nanhey, it has been found by the courts below that his property was inherited by Smt. Rao Rani. Sheo Charan became familiar with Smt. Rao Rani and it appears, he used to help her in cultivation etc. In 1949 Sheo Charan made an application for grant of a joint sanad in his name and in the name of Smt. Rao Rani on which Smt. Rao Rani is stated to have given her consent. But this fact is disputed before us, the application was granted and two sanads were issued in the joint name of Sheo Charan and Smt. Rao Rani in respect of different plots. After the death of Sheo Charan the present suit was filed and Smt. Rao Rani denied that Sheo Charan had any interest in the plots in dispute and that in any case, he not being a co -tenant with her could not acquire the privileges given under Act No. X of 1949. She also contended that she had made full payment for obtaining the sanad and that she had adopted Sheo Charan so that after his death, she alone was his heir as his mother. The trial court held that the Plaintiff was a co bhumidhar with the Defendant after rejecting all the defence raised by Smt. Rao Rani. Smt. Rao Rani then filed an appeal which was heard by the Addl. Civil Judge. The lower appellate court agreed with the trial court that the adoption of Sheo Charan by Sm. Rao Rani was not proved but held that Sheo Charan was not a co -tenant with Smt. Rao Rani under the UP Tenancy Act as the consent of the landholder had not been obtained for making him a co -tenant and any entry in his name in the revenue records was of no avail. The lower appellate court also repelled the contention that on account of obtaining a declaration Under Sec. 3 -B of Act No. X of 1949, Sheo Charan became a cobhumidhar. It has been held that Sheo Charan had no right to make an application under those Ss. and no rights could be conferred on him. It also held that the consent of Smt. Rao Rani had not been given in writing and in any case, even if Sheo Charan had a right to make an application under the aforesaid sections, he could not get the sanad. On these findings, the appeal was allowed and the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Against this decree, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

(2.) The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that Under Sec. 3 -B of Act No. X of 1949 Sheo Charan, by making an application with the consent of Smt. Rao Rani, could become a co -bhumidhar and the lower appellate court was wrong in coming to a different conclusion. It is conceded that he was not a co tenant before the sanad. The second question that has been argued is that Smt. Rao Rani had given her statement on the application and this statement was her consent in writing within the meaning of the Sec. which had been duly proved on the record and the court below was wrong in holding that Smt. Rao Rani had not given her consent in writing as required by the Act.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and we have come to the conclusion that the court below was right in holding that Sheo Charan not being a co -tenant with Smt. Rao Rani under the UP Tenancy Act could not acquire the privileges under Act No. X of 1949 and it is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the second question.