RAM JANAM SINGH Vs. DINA NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed in the year 1981 challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.12.1980 under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred as the ''Act 1953').

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that six Gatas bearing Nos.1113, 1414, 1560, 1133, 1175, 1344 were recorded in the Khevat in the 2nd settlement in the name of Jawahar and others, who were Zamindars. In the 3rd settlement which started from 1931 and continued till 1938, the name of Ram Bahal Singh belonging to the other branch of the common ancestor Sudershan also got recorded as co-Khewatdar i.e. Zamindar. Thus, both the warring parties one whose predecessor-in-interest was Jawahar and the other Ram Bahal were recorded jointly in respect of the aforesaid Gatas in the 3rd settlement. After the death of Ram Bahal, his wife Bhagwan Dei's name was entered in respect of the said Gatas alongwith others mentioned hereinabove. The entries aforesaid as recorded in the 3rd settlement were never put to challenge. Prior to the date of vesting which is 1.7.1952 also name of Ram Bahal Singh was recorded in respect of the said Gata as a co-Khewatdar in Khewat of 1356 (1948). Even after coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 (hereinreferred as 'Act 1950')and the date of vesting mentioned therein as aforesaid, the name of Ram Bahal Singh continued in the records of 1359F. It is nobody's case that the entries of the 3rd settlement in the Khewat as aforesaid were incorrect or were challenged in any proceedings wherein the name of Ram Bahal Singh may have been deleted. The entry pertaining to Ram Bahal Singh in Khewat of 1356 and 1359F in respect of the aforesaid Gatas was also not challenged by the opposite parties nor their predecessors-in-interest.

(3.) Consequently, Bhagwan Dei, the recorded tenure holder having half share in the aforesaid six Gatas sold off her share in all the Gatas in favour of the petitioners vide registered sale-deed dated 4.5.1963. No cancellation of the said sale-deed was sought before the Civil Court by the opposite parties nor their predecessors in interest. In 1966 the opposite parties herein initiated proceedings for declaration of their title under section 229-B of the Act 1950 claiming exclusive right/interest in the aforesaid six Gatas alleging that the said lands were the exclusive ownership of Jawahar who had mortgaged the same in the year 1926 and had redeemed the mortgage in 1945 which did not contain the name of Ram Bahal Singh. This suit was decreed in part, and, Gata Nos.113, 1414 and 560 were held to be the exclusive ownership of Bhagwan Devi, whereas Gata Nos.1133, 1175 and 1344 were held to be the exclusive ownership of Markandey Singh, Ram Surat Singh i.e. predecessors-in-interest of the opposite parties. It is pertinent to mention that the opposite parties herein did not challenge the said decree under section 229-B of the Act 1950 and did not file any appeal. In fact they accepted the decree and vide sale-deed dated 3.8.1968 purchased the remaining half share in Gata Nos.113, 1414 and 1560 from Bhagwan Dei, i.e the half share which remained with her after the sale-deed dated 4.5.1963 executed by her in favour of the petitioners, thus, they accepted the title of Bhagwan Devi in the said Gatas i.e. in three out of the six Gatas. This decree, however, was challenged by the petitioners herein before the Commissioner under section 331 of the Act 1950 by filing an appeal, which was dismissed. The petitioners herein challenged the order of the Commissioner referred hereinabove in second appeal, but, due to the onset of consolidation operations sometime in the year 1970 the entire proceedings abated in view of section 4 and 5 of the Act 1953, however, this did not adversely affect the sale-deed dated 3.8.1968 by which the opposite parties or their predecessors in interest purchased half share of Bhagwan Devi in the aforesaid three out of six Gatas, who, by their conduct accepted the title of Bhagwan Devi in respect thereof. In this regard the contention of Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the opposite parties was that this purchase was made only to settle the dispute and to buy peace, but this aspect would be considered in the later part of the judgment.