Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3084 (ALL)

Laxman v. Board of Revenue, Allahabad

2016-09-08

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar for the petitioner and Sri H.M.B. Sinha for respondent-7, who is only contesting respondents. 2. The remaining respondents are proforma respondents as such no notice is required to be issued to them. The counsel for the respondent-7 does not propose to file any counter affidavit. 3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally. 4. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub Divisional Officer dated 15.10.1985 and Board of Revenue dated 18.7.2016 passed in title suit under Section 229 B read with Section 209 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951. 5. The dispute between the parties is related to plot No. 94/1 area 0.38 acre, 96/6 area 1.40 acre and 111/1 area 0.94 acre (total area 2.72 acre) of village Meerapur, tehsil and distt. Hamirpur. Laxman, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he along with his brother Dhani Ram was owner of the land in dispute and their names be recorded as bhumidhar with transferable right and in case defendant-2 is found in possession over the property in dispute then the decree for his ejectment be also passed. In the plaint it has been state that the land in dispute was the property of Buddha now represented by respondents - 6/1 and 6/2 and names of Laxman and his brother Dhani Ram were recorded in column 9 of the khatauni. Buddha filed a suit for deleting column 9 entry in the year 1970 and that suit was dismissed in the year 1971. Thereafter Buddha never challenged the decree and it has become final against him. However, subsequently Chatura respondent-7 obtained a sale deed from Buddha and Dhani Ram of the land in dispute. Buddha left with no right in the land in dispute as such sale deed executed by Buddha was null and void. So far as Dhani Ram is concerned he alleged that his signature in the sale deed was forged. Therefore the relief was sought in favour of the plaintiff and Dhani Ram respondent-8. The suit was filed before Sub Divisional Officer who by judgment dated 15.10.1985 held that as Buddha and Dhani Ram executed a sale deed dated 8.2.1982 in favour of Chatura as such Chatura has become owner of the land in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 8.2.1982. The suit was filed before Sub Divisional Officer who by judgment dated 15.10.1985 held that as Buddha and Dhani Ram executed a sale deed dated 8.2.1982 in favour of Chatura as such Chatura has become owner of the land in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 8.2.1982. On this finding he dismissed the suit of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid decree in appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner by judgment dated 13.2.1991 held that as Buddha has lost the suit under Section 229 B in the year 1971 as such he left with no right in the land in dispute and sale deed executed by him on 8.2.1982 is null and void. On this finding he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Chatura filed a second appeal against the aforesaid order before Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue by order dated 18.7.2016 allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the appellate suit and reinstated the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 7. It is not denied by the counsel for the respondents that Buddha filed a suit under Section 229 B of the Act for deleting entry of column 9 in favour of Laxman and Dhani Ram in the year 1970 which was dismissed by order dated 10.8.1971. This decree dated 10.8.1971 has become final against Buddha, therefore, Buddha left with no right in the land in dispute as such sale deed dated 8.2.1982 executed by Buddha in favour of Chatura is of no effect. 8. So far as Dhani Ram is concerned, admittedly Dhani Ram has ½ share in the property in dispute. Although in the plaint it has been stated that signature of Dhani Ram was fabricated in the sale deed dated 8.2.1982 but Dhani Ram neither filed any suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 8.2.1982 nor set up any counter claim in the present case. Therefore sale deed dated 8. 2.1982, in respect of ½ share, is valid. Therefore judgment of trial court as well as second appellate court holding that sale deed is valid in respect of entire land in dispute, appears to be incorrect. 9. In the results, the writ petition partly succeeds and party allowed. Therefore sale deed dated 8. 2.1982, in respect of ½ share, is valid. Therefore judgment of trial court as well as second appellate court holding that sale deed is valid in respect of entire land in dispute, appears to be incorrect. 9. In the results, the writ petition partly succeeds and party allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 15.10.1985 as well as Board of Revenue dated 18.7.2016 is hereby modified and it is held that suit of the petitioner is decreed in respect of his ½ share in the land in dispute and Chatura has become ½ share in the land in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 8.2.1982 executed by Dhani Ram. Petition partly allowed.