CHIDDA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the decree passed in second appeal by the Board of Revenue, Respondent No. 1 affirming the decree of the first appellate court whereunder allowing the appeal and reversing the decree of the trial court, the suit of the Plaintiff -Respondent was decreed, the Defendant -Petitioner has approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the judgment and decree of the second appellate court as well as the first appellate court.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel representing the contesting Respondent and have also carefully perused the record.

(3.) THE facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. Imam and Peeru were brothers. According to the allegations made in the plaint, Imam was the exclusive sirdar of the plots details whereof were given in Schedule A of the plaint. However, the land in dispute, the details whereof were given in Schedule B of the plaint, was joint sirdari holding of Imam and Peeru who had equal shares therein. Imam expired about ten years before the filing of the suit whereafter the Plaintiff being his widow became the exclusive tenure -holder of the plots detailed in Schedule A and co -tenure -holder with Peeru to the extent of 1/2 share in plots detailed in Schedule B of the plaint. The Plaintiff was old, weak and almost blind. Taking advantage of her condition, the Defendant, on the pretext of submitting an application for subsidy for digging a well obtained her signatures on blank papers, later on it transpired that defrauding the Plaintiff and taking undue advantage of her helplessness and confidence, the Defendant got prepared a sale deed in respect of the plots detailed in Schedule C of the plaint. A suit was filed for getting the sale deed cancelled being Suit No. 413 of 1967 which was decreed. At the time of the filing of the plaint, all the plots comprised in Schedules A and B stood recorded exclusively in the name of the Defendant. On coming to know of the said erroneous entry, the Plaintiff filed the suit and since Peeru had died and the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Defendant No. J, the son of Peeru, a declaration was sought to the effect that the Plaintiff was the tenure -holder of 9 bigha 16 decimal area of the land detailed in Schedules A and B of the plaint and for partition of the said area and putting her in possession over the separated area. It may be noticed that the plots detailed in Schedules A and B referred to hereinabove were later on given a different number and the entire area of the total number of plots mentioned in Schedules A and B was divided into five plots with different numbers. The details of the new numbers with different areas was detailed in Schedule D of the plaint.