KALAWATI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgments of the revenue courts the plaintiff petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE plaintiff petitioner filed suit under section 229-B/209 of the UP ZA and LR Act for declaration of her right in the disputed plots. Her case was that the disputed plots belonged to her father Bachchan alias Ram Bach- chan. On the death of her father, her mother inherited the property in suit. On the death of her mother, she inherited the peoperty on 3-4-1953. According to her Ram Gati (maternal grand father) got a forged sale deed executed in his favour on 24-4-53 by some imposter representing that the transferor was the plaintiff's mother. THE aforesaid Ram Gati thereafter transferred the disputed land to Ram Chandra and others who are denying the title of the plaintiff petitioner.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the revenue courts have patently erred in applying the provisions of Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. According to him the judgments of the revenue courts are patently erroneous and against the dictum of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court.