SHRI NARIAN Vs. SATYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts as per exposition in the pleadings are; On 5-3-1973 Shri Narain Lal institutes a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment in the Court of Assistant Collector, First Class, Sadar, Pratapgarh. The pleading opens with a pedigree illustrating relationships amid contestants. It is alleged he along with defendant 1 to 8 constitute a joint Hindu family. The head of the family was Sukh Lal, father of defendant Satya Narain Lal. He has expired some 8 years ago. Then Satya Narain Lal became Karta of the household and he continues as such. Defendants 4 to 8 are living outside the city and are so impleaded; the suit is for their benefit also. The land in Schedule A was acquired by Sukh Lal and Param Sukh Lal, his father, out of joint family fund through a sale-deed. This is Bhumidhari land, As against reality Sukh Lal got the names of his daughter-in-law Smt. Satya Prema Devi, defendant No. 2, and of Om Prakash Narain Lal, defendant No. 3, entered in revenue records. These two were not let into possession. The name of defendant Satya Narain Lal is entered over Sirdari tenure, detailed in Schedule (ii) in a representative capacity; Karta of the family. As it respects land noted in paragraph 6 : Sirdari - this is jointly his along with defendants 4 to 8 as to 1/2 share; the remaining 1/2 share belongs to defendant Satya Narain Lal. That he with defendants 4 to 8, sons of Param Sukh Lal, have moved in the year 1968 for mutation in Tahsildar's on death of their father. By order of Tahsildar dated 29-5-1968 mutation is allowed over land of both tenure. In a turn of fortune, in a proceeding for correction of papers, at the instance of defendants 1 to 3, their names are expunged by order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 5-11-1971. This is a cause sufficient for a declaratory suit. The relief of a declaration that they with defendants 4 to 8 are co-Bhumidhar tenants of land in Schedule (1) and co-Sirdars of land in Schedule (ii) with Satya Narain Lal. That rest of defendants have no concern whatsoever. A relief accordingly is prayed for.

(2.) The claim elicits an emphatic denial by defendants 1 to 3 who jointly file a written statement on 28-5-1973. It is denied plaintiff is either co-Bhumidhar or co-Sirdar of land in suit. The land is not acquisition of joint Hindu family. The case is that joint Hindu family has suffered disintegration after death of Kashi Lal. The members separating in food, lodging and came in separate possession of their landed interest. The land in Schedule (ii) had been acquired by Sukh Lal. He was to begin with a hereditary tenant who became a Sirdar. After the death of Sukh Lal they are Sirdar tenants in possession. The land in Schedule (1) had been acquired by answering defendant 1's father Sukh Lal out of his own funds. He was a khudkasht-holder but than defendants 2 and 3 had settled the land of Khasra Nos. 2717/1, 2718/1 from him and they became Sirdar tenants in consequence of abolition. They became adhivasi too by reason of possession and thence Sirdar tenants of land mentioned in Schedule(1) comprised of Khasra Nos. 2717, 2718/1, 2651/1, 2712 and 2718. They were hereditary tenants and in consequence of vesting of estate became Sirdar tenants. Also respecting plots described in paragraph 22 they were adhivasi and became Sirdars. In respect of this land Compensation proceeding have become absolute. The rights of title-holder have become extinct. The relief to dismiss the suit is prayed for.

(3.) A joint written statement by defendant 4 to 8 in form of Iqbaldawa is filed. The pleadings of the parties have lead to issues; ten have been framed. Parties been given chance to lead their evidence. They have argued on all aspect. On 1-12-1973 trial Judge Sri U. P. Pandey has dismissed the suit. The appeal of Sri Narains is dismissed by order of Additional Commissioner Sri Dhananjai Singh on 4-10-1990. Consequently second appeal by defendant Sri Narain Lal.