GIRDHAR PRASAD Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN consolidation proceedings Smt. Rukmini filed an objection to the effect that the plots in dispute were occupancy holding of her husband Behari. IN June, 1908, these plots were mortgaged by Kaushilaya, the predecessor-in-interest of Behari, in favour of Sri Khireshwar, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. She claimed that Behari died after the date of vesting and since Behari was recorded as tenant-in-chief, after his death she inherited the land in dispute as Sirdar and the petitioners were mere Asamis. The claim was contested and it was pleaded that the petitioners, who were ex-Zamindars, being in possession of the land in dispute, acquired Bhumidhari rights. IN the alternative it was asserted that mortgage of the occupancy holding being void and no suit having been filed for possession within the period of limitation, the petitioners acquired Sirdari rights on the date of vesting.

(2.) THE Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the petitioners that they had acquired Sirdari rights and directed that their names be recorded as Sirdars. THE Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal filed by Smt. Rukmini holding that after the death of Beheri, she acquired Sirdari rights and she was entitled to have her name recorded as Sirdar. THE Deputy Director (Consolidation) dismissed the appeal of the petitioners holding that the mortgage was not more than sixty years old as claimed by them and that they still held the land as mortgagees and, therefore acquired only Asami rights and the respondents acquired the status of Sirdar. THE petitioners thereafter preferred a revision which was dismissed as not maintainable. Dismissing the petition of the appellants, a learned Single Judge of this Court negatived the claim of the appellants that they were Bhumidhars as well as the alternative claim that the petitioners became Sirdars of the plots in dispute. THE learned Judge also held that the revision filed by the petitioners before the Joint Director of Consolidation was not maintainable.

(3.) IN the present case, the mortgagees were put in possession of the land but since no interest in the land was created in their favour, they could not legally claim to be the sub-tenants and, consequently, did not acquire Sirdari lights on the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The claim has been rightly negatived.