BAIJ NATH Vs. BINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING unsuccessfully challenged the conciliation order passed by the Assistant. Consolidation Officer under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground of fraud upto the stage of Deputy Director Consolidation the applicant filed the suit, which, on an objection raised by the opposite party of being barred under Section 49 of the Act, was decided in the negative by the trial court but in affirmative by the appellate court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant relying on a number of decisions reported in Noor Khan v. Board of Revenue, 1977 AWC 394, Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna, 1976 AWC 412 and 1966 RD 147, has urged that the suit for cancellation of an order passed under Section 9 was not a proceeding regarding which any relief could have been obtained from the consolidation courts as such the suit was maintainable. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent relying on Chandra Shekhar v. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1972 Alld. 76, 1974 Unreported Revenue Cases 41 and two other cases in the same volume at pages 121 and 250, Chet Ram v. Director of Consolidation, 1970 AWR 775 has strenuously defended the order passed by the appellate court. He has also relied on Ramzan Ali v. Mt. Satul Bibi, AIR 1948 Alld. 244 and M/s. Kalka Prasad Ram Charan v. Harish Chandra, AIR 1957 Alld. 25 in support of his argument that this court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant as he having agitated the matter once upto the Deputy Director of Consolidation there was no equity in his favour and justice having been done between the parties the revision should be dismissed.

(3.) IN the plaint the applicant claimed to be sole sirdar as the conciliation was obtained by inducement and practising fraud on him. The opposite party was alleged to have obtained thumb impression of the applicant on plain paper and he subsequently after opposite party's assertion of possession, on enquiry, came to know that those thumb impressions have been utilised as compromise before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The applicant therefore unmistakenty challenged the character of the document. The effect of inducement if found true was to render the document void. Such a claim could be and was in fact agitated before the consolidation courts. As the nature of the document itself was challenged the case was squarely covered by the principle laid down in Ningawwa's case (supra).