LACHO DEVI Vs. BALBHADRA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein have impugned the orders passed by the appellate and the revisional authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, which are Annexures-3 and 4 sespectively. By his appellate order, Annexure-3 dated 3-2-1977/8-4-77 the Deputy Director, Consolidation, the appellate authority, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and held that the name of respondent No. 1 herein shall be recorded in respect of the properties gifted to him under the deed of gift dated 26-5-1923 which were recorded in the name of Sahodara Kuer in the R.S. Khatiyan. The appellate order (Annexure-3) has been affirmed by the Director, Consolidation, the revisional authority, by his order dated 21-12-1985.

(2.) It is not in dispute that Abhilakh Rai had two sons, namely, Swarth Rai and Kritanath Rai. Abhilakh Rai had died earlier, and by the year 1923 both the sons of Abhilakh Rai were dead. The properties in question, therefore, were recorded in the cadastral survey in the name of Ajora Kuer, widow of Swarath Rai and Sahodra Kuer, widow of Kritanath Rai. Ajora Kuer had a daughter Dhanrajia, who was married to one Nagina Rai. They had a son Balbhadra Rai, who is respondent No. 1 herein. In the year 1923 he was a minor aged about three years. On the other hand, Sahodra Kuer had a daughter, Parvati Devi. So far as the petitioners herein are concerned, it is not clear as to whether they are the collaterals of Abhilakh Rai claiming reversionary rights. In the writ petition filed before this Court they have simply claimed that the ancestors of the petitioners were the persons who were to succeed to the properties left behind by the widows. In the consolidation proceedings, as well as before this Court in the writ petition, the petitioners have based their rights on the basis of a compromise decree dated 14-12-1923. In this background of facts the case of the petitioners set out in the writ petition may be adverted to.

(3.) According to the petitioners, 13.02 acres of land consisting of 18 plots in Khata Nos. 2 and 18 of village Pashara were recorded in the names of aforesaid Ajora Kuer and Sahodra Kuer in the cadastral survey. In the revisional survey the same lands were recorded under Khata No. 66 consisting of 17 plots having an area of 12.68 acres. The lands were recorded in the name of Sahodra Kuer. According to the petitioners, their ancestors were the persons entitled to succeed to the properties in question after the widows. However, on 26th May, 1923 respondent No. 1 got a collusive deed of gift executed in his favour with regard to the aforesaid lands. The said gift was never given effect and respondent No. 1 never came in possession of the lands under the gift deed, nor his name was mutated in the revenue records on the basis of the deed of gift. In sum and substance, therefore, the gift deed was not acted upon and the widows continued in possession of the lands gifted under the aforesaid deed of gift. However, the ancestors of the petitioners having come to know about the fraudulent and collusive deed of gift filed a title suit being Title Suit No. 37 of 1923 against the aforesaid Ajora Kuer, Sahodra Kuer and Balbhadra Rai, respondent No. 1 herein, and others, challenging the deed of gift. Respondent No. 1, Balbhadra Rai, was defendant No.3 in the suit and it appears from the record produced by the petitioners that in the suit he was represented by his guardian, namely, his father, since he was a minor. Ultimately, the parties arrived at a compromise and a compromise petition was filed before the Court. The Court of 2nd Subordinate Judge, Sahabad, where the suit was pending, decreed the suit in terms of the compromise by his order dated 14-12-1923. The said decree was sealed and signed on 18-12-1923. It is also not disputed that Ajora Kuer died during the pendency of the suit.