SIYA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri R. K. Por wal, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri U. C. Misra, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present petition are that there were two brothers, Banwari Lal and Ujiarey Lal, who had joint holdings in plot No. 536 having an area of 5. 73 acres. Present revisionists, Siya Ram and Sewa Ram and their brothers Ram Bahadur, Agaj Ram and Ram Milan are sons of Ujiarey Lal. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 24-1-80 Banwari Lal executed a will in favour of all the five sons of Ujiarey Lal. However, on 25-10-80 Banwari Lal ex ecuted sale-deed of his share of land in favour of Ram Bahadur one of the sons of Ujiarey Lal. Ram Bahadur applied for mutation on the basis of the said sale-deed but his name could not be mutated as there were some dues of the bank and the land in question was mortgaged with the Bank. It is also alleged that in the said proceedings Siya Ram had filed objections but sub sequently he got his objections rejected. Ram Bahadur thereafter in July 1982 ex ecuted sale-deeds in favour of different persons. Ram Bahadur again in August 1983 executed sale- deed of the entire land i. e. 5. 73 acres in the name of Devi Dayal and his wife Jai Devi for a sum of Rs. 30,000. Possession was delivered to them and on 14-8-85 names of Smt. Jai Devi and Devi Dayal were mutated in the revenue records as Ram Bahadur did not file any objection. The complainant claims to have purchased half share in the joint land from Devi Dayal and Jai Devi in July 1986 through registered sale-deed for a sum of Rs. 49,000. It is also alleged that Ram Bahadur thereafter in-October, 1986 ex ecuted sale-deed of the same land which was sold by him to Devi Dayal and Smt. Jai Devi in favour of Bare Lal and Ram Singh in order to cause loss to the complainant. It was alleged in the complaint that this was done in collusion with Siya Ram and Seva Ram. If was further alleged that prior to the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the complainant the accused persons and their other brothers got their names mutated in the revenue records on the basis of the will" alleged to have been ex ecuted in their favour by Banwari Lal and this was also done in order to cause loss to the complainant and his wife. On these allegations a prayer was made that the accused persons may be prosecuted and may be punished.

(3.) BOTH these orders, that of the learned Magistrate as well as that of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge are chal lenged in the present writ petition on the ground that so far as the present petitioners are concerned, no offence is disclosed against them. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the entire Act of the accused persons was in collusion with each other and the ac cused persons have defrauded the com plainant and his wife by mis-repre sentation.