Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOOL CHAND versus D.D.C. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mool Chand v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 3747 of 1974 [2006] RD-AH 7622 (12 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Court No. 28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3747 of 1974

Mool Chand

Versus

Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut & Others

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Triveni Shankar leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. B. Singhal appearing for the contesting respondents.

The dispute relates to Khata No. 441. In the basic year, khata in dispute was recorded in the name of the petitioner and respondents no. 5 to 9. During consolidation operation, an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by respondent no. 4 claiming that sale deed dated 9.11.1962 in favour of petitioner was got executed fraudulently and without consideration and hence void and the name of the petitioner recorded on the basis of sale deed was illegal and is liable to be expunged. The claim was contested by the petitioner on the ground that he had purchased ¼ share of respondent no. 4 by means of a registered sale deed dated 9.11.1962 after paying due consideration.

An objection was also filed by the petitioner  that his parentage was wrongly recorded in the revenue record. Since he was adopted by Sri Shyam Sundar Lal hence entry as son of Trilok Chand should be corrected and his name be recorded as adopted son of Shyam Sundar Lal. Certain other objections filed with regard to khata in dispute but they are not in dispute in the present writ petition.

The Consolidation Officer consolidated all the objections and vide order dated 24.5.1973 dismissed the objection of respondent no.4. The objection filed by the petitioner for correcting his parentage was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 both filed appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide a common order dated 9.10.1973 allowed the appeal filed by respondent no. 4 while appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who vide order dated 29.3.1974 dismissed both the revisions filed by the petitioner.

The case set up by respondent no. 4 in his objection was that khata in dispute originally belonged to his father Moti who had two more sons besides the petitioner namely Hemu @ Hem Raj respondent no. 5 and Devi Sahai respondent no. 6. At the time of obtaining bhumidhari sanad under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Moti got the name of three sons recorded as co-bhumidhar along with him and thus respondent no., 4 had ¼ share. It was also alleged that they were put in possession separately although there was no partition. Since at that time Hemu @ Hem Raj and Devi Sahai were very younger as such in accordance with wishes of their father Moti they were put in possession over the better quality of land near canal with the understanding that subsequently some of the lands situate near canal shall be exchanged with the land which was  given to  respondent no. 4. However, later on Hemu @ Hem Raj and Devi Sahai refused to exchange the land as such respondent no. 4 executed sale deed dated 9.11.1962 in favour of the petitioner again with an understanding that he will take possession and hand it over to him and no consideration was paid.

The Consolidation Officer held that respondent no. 4 failed to produce any evidence to establish that no consideration was paid and there is admission of respondent no. 4 before the Sub Registrar of having received sale consideration of Rs. 2000/-. The Consolidation Officer also found that possession of the petitioner over the disputed land is established from the khasara and irregation slips. On the basis of the aforesaid he came to the conclusion that sale deed executed by respondent no. 4 was a valid document and dismissed his objection.

The Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have reversed the finding of Consolidation Officer on the basis of oral evidence of one Shyam Sundar Lal who is alleged to have given loan to respondent no. 4 for repayment of which the sale deed was executed, failed to prove in his statement that he had ever given any loan to respondent no. 4. They failed to consider the admission of respondent no. 4 before the Sub Registrar that he had received sale consideration of Rs. 2000/-.

The admission of respondent no. 4 of having received sale consideration before the Sub Registrar raises a strong presumption that sale consideration was passed. The same was rebuttable by strong and direct evidence. However, The Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation both have failed to take into account the admission of respondent no. 4 and discarded the same only on the basis of surmises and conjectures that Shyam Sundar Lal failed to prove in his statement that any loan was given by him to respondent no.4.  

The finding of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, based on such a weak oral evidence, in the face of admission of respondent no. 4 himself before the Sub Registrar that he had received Rs. 2000/- as sale consideration, cannot be sustained.

In so far as the objection of the petitioner that he was adopted son of Shyam Sundar Lal and his parentage in the record be corrected, all the three courts negated his claim on the ground that he has failed to produce any evidence to establish the fact of adoption. In view of the aforesaid, there is no scope for interference in the findings recorded by all the three courts in this regard.

In view of above discussions, the writ petition stands allowed partly, the impugned judgemnets of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the objection filed by respondent no. 4 stand quashed and that of the Consolidation Officer is affirmed. However, the impugned judgments of all the three courts dismissing the objection filed by the petitioner with regard to correction of his parentage claiming adoption by Shyam Sundar Lal stand affirmed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dt. 12.4.2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.