Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2310 (ALL)

Jai Prakash v. Board Of Revenue

2019-10-01

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. The present writ petition arises out of proceedings registered under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act,1950'). 2. The dispute between the parties relates to Khata No. 1430 which included Plot Nos. 3655,3656,3664,3667,3668,3670 and 3671 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Suit Property'). It is admitted between the parties that one Durga Prasad had two sons, namely, Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund. Ram Swarup died in 1932 and his widow Sukhdei died in 1935. Bal Mukund died in 1960. From his first wife, Bal Mukund had one son, namely, Sagar Dutt and from his second wife, Bal Mukund had two sons, namely, Shyam Lal and Jai Prakash. Shyam Lal died in 1978. Sagar Dutt died during the pendency of the case in the courts below. The respondent nos. 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of Sagar Dutt and respondent nos. 8 to 11 are the legal heirs of Shyam Lal. Jai Prakash is the petitioner in the present writ petition. During his life time, Ram Swarup was recorded as the tenure holder of the suit property. It appears that after 1932, i.e., after the death of Ram Swarup, Sagar Dutt was recorded as the tenure holder of the suit property and continued to be so recorded in 1359 Fasli and in the subsequent revenue records prepared under the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act,1901. In 1983, the petitioner instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act,1950 impleading Sagar Dutt and the descendants of Shyam Lal as defendants and prayed for a decree declaring him to be a co-tenure holder of the suit property having 1/3 share in the same and for a partition of the suit property. It appears from the records that the said case was re-numbered as Case No. 10 of 1994 and shall be referred as such in the present order. Case No. 10 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner alleging that Bal Mukund and Ram Swarup constituted a Hindu undivided family and the suit property was purchased by Ram Swarup from the joint family fund and Ram Swarup, being the 'head' of the family, was recorded in the revenue records as tenant of the suit property. Case No. 10 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner alleging that Bal Mukund and Ram Swarup constituted a Hindu undivided family and the suit property was purchased by Ram Swarup from the joint family fund and Ram Swarup, being the 'head' of the family, was recorded in the revenue records as tenant of the suit property. It was stated in the plaint that the petitioner and the respondents are members of a Hindu undivided family and there had been no partition either between Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund or between the petitioner and the respondents. It was alleged that the suit property was part of the hindu joint family property and, therefore, the petitioner along with the respondents was a co-tenure holder of the suit property having 1/3 share and entitled to seek partition of the suit property. 3. Sagar Dutt contested Case No. 10 of 1994 and filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint that there was no partition between Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund. In his written statement, Sagar Dutt stated that the suit property was the self acquired property of Ram Swarup who purchased it from his independent income. It was stated in the written statement that after the death of Ram Swarup, Sagar Dutt became the sole tenure holder of the suit property on the basis of a family settlement and was recorded as such in the revenue records. It was further stated in the written statement that the defendant was in exclusive possession of the suit property since 1932 without any obstruction either by Bal Mukund or the petitioner and respondent nos. 8 to 11 and no objections were filed either by the petitioner or by Bal Mukund after the enforcement of the Act,1950 or during the different settlements made before the enforcement of the Act,1950 and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation as well as by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court, i.e., the Assistant Collector / Additional City Magistrate, District Meerut framed eight issues. The issues framed by the trial court and relevant for a decision of the present writ petition were as to whether the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner was a co-tenure holder of the suit property along with the defendant nos. 1 to 5, i.e., Sagar Dutt and respondent nos. The issues framed by the trial court and relevant for a decision of the present writ petition were as to whether the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner was a co-tenure holder of the suit property along with the defendant nos. 1 to 5, i.e., Sagar Dutt and respondent nos. 8 to 11, whether the suit property was self acquired property of Ram Swarup which Sagar Dutt got in a family settlement and whether the suit was barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. During the proceedings in Case No. 10 of 1994, the petitioner filed different revenue records to show that there had been no partition between Bal Mukund and Ram Swarup and the mutation order dated 18.10.1932 to prove that Bal Mukund was the legal heir of Ram Swarup. Apart from the aforesaid, certain electricity bills and receipts of house tax as well as the voter list were filed by the petitioner to show that the sons of Bal Mukund, which included Sagar Dutt, were part of a Hindu undivided family and there had been no partition between them and Sagar Dutt was the head of the family. The petitioner also filed documents to show that in 1953, Bal Mukund installed a tube-well in the suit property and after the death of Bal Mukund, the tube-well was registered in the name of the three sons of Bal Mukund, i.e., the petitioner, Sagar Dutt and Shyam Lal who jointly paid its bill. In the trial court, respondents also filed revenue records to show that Sagar Dutt had been consistently recorded as the sole tenure holder of the suit property since 1932. The respondents also filed the statement of Bal Mukund recorded in Case No. 179-1366 registered under the Large Land Holdings Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as, 'LLHT Act') in which, according to the defendant Sagar Dutt, Bal Mukund had admitted that as a result of a family settlement Sagar Dutt became the sole tenure holder of the suit property after the death of Ram Swarup. It appears from the records filed before this Court that in his statement recorded by the trial court under Order X, Civil Procedure Code,1908, Sagar Dutt stated that he became the sole tenant of the suit property as a result of a family settlement between Sukhdei (the widow of Ram Swarup), Bal Mukund and himself. It appears from the records filed before this Court that in his statement recorded by the trial court under Order X, Civil Procedure Code,1908, Sagar Dutt stated that he became the sole tenant of the suit property as a result of a family settlement between Sukhdei (the widow of Ram Swarup), Bal Mukund and himself. The statement under Order X CPC is annexed as Annexure No. RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. 5. The trial court vide its judgment and order dated 16.3.1994 dismissed Case No. 10 of 1994. In its judgment dated 16.3.1994, the trial court held that the suit property was the self acquired property of Ram Swarup and was not purchased from the joint family fund. Relying on the statement of Bal Mukund recorded in proceedings under LLHT Act, the trial court held that Sagar Dutt was recorded as the sole tenure holder of the suit property as a result of a family settlement which was accepted by all members of the family and no objections were raised by any member of the family including Bal Mukund. On the basis of its aforesaid findings, the trial court held that the petitioner was not a co-tenure holder of the suit property and the suit was barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.3.1994, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 104 of 1993-94 before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Meerut and the Additional Commissioner vide his judgment and decree dated 27.7.1994 allowed the appeal and decreed Case No. 10 of 1994. Relying on the receipts and bills relating to different municipal taxes and charges and the entries in the voter list, the first appellate court held that the petitioner, Sagar Dutt and Shyam Lal were part of a Hindu joint family. In its judgment and order dated 27.7.1994, the first appellate court also held that Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund constituted a Hindu joint family and it was not proved that the suit property was the self acquired property of Ram Swarup or that there was any partition between Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund. In its judgment and order dated 27.7.1994, the first appellate court also held that Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund constituted a Hindu joint family and it was not proved that the suit property was the self acquired property of Ram Swarup or that there was any partition between Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund. Relying on the document which showed that Bal Mukund installed the tube-well existing on the suit property and after the death of Bal Mukund, the said tube-well was registered in the name of the three sons of Bal Mukund who jointly paid its bill, the first appellate court held that the suit property was joint family property and the petitioner, Sagar Dutt and Shyam Lal and consequently their descendants were co-tenure holders of the suit property and the petitioner had 1/3 share in it. The first appellate court also reversed the findings of the trial court that the suit was barred by limitation and by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. 7. Sagar Dutt died during the pendency of the first appeal and, therefore, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.7.1994 passed by the first appellate court, respondent nos. 2 to 7 filed Second Appeal No. 124 of 1993-94 under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad. Through its judgment and order dated 4.4.1995, the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad allowed the second appeal and restored the order passed by the trial court. In its judgment and order dated 4.4.1995, the Board of Revenue held that the suit property was purchased by Ram Swarup from his independent income and relying on the admission of Bal Mukund, the Board held that Sagar Dutt was the sole tenant of the suit property and the petitioner had no share in it. The Board also held that as Sagar Dutt was recorded in the revenue records since 1932 and was in continuous possession, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation. In its order dated 4.4.1995, the Board of Revenue also took note of the different sales and purchases separately made by the parties. The judgment and order dated 4.4.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue has been challenged in the present writ petition. 8. In its order dated 4.4.1995, the Board of Revenue also took note of the different sales and purchases separately made by the parties. The judgment and order dated 4.4.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue has been challenged in the present writ petition. 8. Challenging the judgment and order dated 4.4.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, the counsel for the petitioner has argued that the different revenue records filed by the petitioner before the trial court proved that Bal Mukund and Ram Swarup constituted a Hindu joint family and there was no partition either between Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund or after the death of Bal Mukund, between his sons and Sagar Dutt was the head of the family and the suit property was a joint family property and the petitioner had 1/3 share in it. It was argued that the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue that the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation and by estoppel and acquiescence was contrary to law. It was further argued that the family settlement pleaded by Sagar Dutt in his favour was not proved by the evidence on record. It was argued that the Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the appeal without framing any substantial question of law which was mandatory under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (as amended in 1976) and in reversing the findings of the first appellate court even though the findings of the first appellate court were based on evidence on record. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 4.4.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue is contrary to law and is liable to be set-aside. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama, (2018) 15 SCC 130 . 9. Rebutting the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondents has argued that an oral family settlement is recognized under the law. It was argued that the family settlement pleaded by Sagar Dutt had been acted upon and neither the widow of Ram Swarup nor the father of Sagar Dutt, i.e., Bal Mukund ever objected to it. It was argued that the family settlement pleaded by Sagar Dutt had been acted upon and neither the widow of Ram Swarup nor the father of Sagar Dutt, i.e., Bal Mukund ever objected to it. It was argued that the plaintiff/petitioner could not show the existence of any nucleus or source of income of the joint hindu family to prove that the suit property was purchased from the joint family fund. It was argued that from the evidence on record especially, the sale deed dated 31.8.1922, it was proved that Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund were living separately. It was further argued that Sagar Dutt was recorded as the sole tenure holder of the suit property even in 1342 Fasli, i.e., during the settlement of Mr. Waugh and was recorded as Sirdaar of the suit property under Section 18 of the Act,1950. It was argued that under the Act,1950, Sagar Dutt acquired new rights which had attained finality. It was also argued that from the admission of Bal Mukund, it was evident that Bal Mukund had no concern with the suit property and the said admission was binding on the petitioner who claimed through Bal Mukund. It was argued that the claim of the petitioner was barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence and the suit was barred by limitation. It was argued by the counsel for the respondents that there was no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Board of Revenue because under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950, the Board of Revenue was not required to frame any substantial question of law as the amendments in 1976 in Section 100 were not applicable while the Board of Revenue exercised its power as a second appellate court under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 and the powers of the Board under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 were governed by Section 100 CPC as it existed prior to the amendment. It was further argued that it was not a fit case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kale and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 119 ; Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 ; State of Uttarakhand Vs. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kale and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 119 ; Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 ; State of Uttarakhand Vs. Mohan Singh and Ors., (2012) 13 SCC 281 and Marabasappa (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. Vs. Ningappa (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 451 . 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties. 11. It is not disputed that the suit property was purchased in the name of Ram Swarup through a sale deed executed by one Amba Prasad. It is also not disputed that Ram Swarup died issueless leaving behind his widow Sukhdei. The issue whether Ram Swarup and Bal Mukund had separated or whether the suit property was purchased from the joint family fund or from the independent income of Ram Swarup is not relevant to decide the dispute between the parties and the present writ petition. The claim of Sagar Dutt is not dependent on a decision on the issue as to whether the suit property was a joint family property or the separate property of Ram Swarup. It is not the case of respondent nos. 2 to 7 that, through any recognised mode of transfer, Ram Swarup, during his lifetime, had transferred the suit property to Sagar Dutt or had executed any Will in favour of Sagar Dutt. Thus, after the death of Ram Swarup, by virtue of Section 24 of Agra Tenancy Act,1926, the suit property devolved on Sukhdei, the widow of Ram Swarup and after the death of Sukhdei, the estate would have devolved on Bal Mukund, the brother of Ram Swarup. After the death of Bal Mukund, under Section 171 of the Act,1950, the estate would devolve on his three sons. If Section 24 of Agra Tenancy Act,1926 and Section 171 of the Act,1950 operate, Sagar Dutt had no rights in the suit property during the lifetime of Sukhdei and Bal Mukund and was only a co-tenure holder of the suit property along with his brothers including the petitioner irrespective of whether the suit property was joint family property or self acquired property of Ram Swarup purchased by his independent income. In order to succeed in their case that Sagar Dutt was the sole tenant of the suit property, the respondent nos. 2 to 7 had to prove some event which excluded the operation of Section 24 of Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 or Section 171 of the Act,1950. The said was necessary because when one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of a joint title. (See P. Lakshmi Reddy Vs. L. Lakshmi Reddy, (1957) AIR SC 314). 12. The case of respondent nos. 2 to 7 is that after the death of Ram Swarup, Sagar Dutt became the sole tenant of the suit property through a family settlement between Sukhdei, Bal Mukund and Sagar Dutt. Apparently, the case of respondent nos. 2 to 7 was that Bal Mukund or his other two sons never acquired any tenancy rights in the suit property. If the case of family settlement as pleaded by respondent nos. 2 to 7 is believed, Sukhdei relinquished her rights, title and interest in the suit property in favour of Sagar Dutt even though Sagar Dutt had no antecedent title in the property. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kale and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 119 , such a family settlement would be valid even if Ram Swarup had separated from Bal Mukund and was the sole tenure holder of the suit property and also even if the suit property was a joint family property and Ram Swarup was recorded as the tenure holder of the suit property only as the 'Karta' of the family and all the members of the family had not entered into the arrangement. At this stage, the observations of the Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 17 of Kale (supra) are reproduced below: "In Krishna Beharilal v. Gulabchand, it was pointed out that the word "family" had a very wide connotation and could not be confined only to a group of persons who were recognised by law as having a right of succession or claiming to have a share. The Court then observed: [SCC p. 843, paras 7-8] "To consider a settlement as a family arrangement, it is not necessary that the parties to the compromise should all belong to one family. The Court then observed: [SCC p. 843, paras 7-8] "To consider a settlement as a family arrangement, it is not necessary that the parties to the compromise should all belong to one family. As observed by this Court in Ram Charan Das v. Girjanandini Devi - the word "family" in the context of a family arrangement is not to be understood in a narrow sense of being a group of persons who are recognised in law as having a right of succession or having a claim to a share in the property in dispute. If the dispute which is settled is one between near relations then the settlement of such a dispute can be considered as a family arrangement - see Ramcharan Das case. 13. The courts lean strongly in favour of family arrangements to bring about harmony in a family and do justice to its various members and avoid in anticipation future disputes which might ruin them all." 14. The issue in the present case is whether the family settlement was proved by respondent nos. 2 to 7 and whether the findings recorded by the first appellate court accepting the case of the petitioner were based on evidence on record and further whether, under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, the Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the findings of the first appellate court and record its own findings rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 15. The family settlement was set-up by respondent nos. 2 to 7 and, therefore, the burden was on respondent nos. 2 to 7 to prove the family settlement. To prove the family settlement, the respondent nos. 2 to 7 relied on the alleged admission of Bal Mukund made in proceedings under the LLHT Act and on the conduct of the petitioner and Bal Mukund in not filing any objections against the entries in the revenue records showing Sagar Dutt to be the sole tenant of the suit property. In this context, the respondent nos. 2 to 7 also argued that the claim of the petitioner was barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. So far as the plea of respondent nos. In this context, the respondent nos. 2 to 7 also argued that the claim of the petitioner was barred by the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. So far as the plea of respondent nos. 2 to 7 that the claim of the petitioner was barred by the principle of estoppel, it is sufficient to note that mere long standing revenue entries without any legal sanction or authority of law confer no right on the recorded person. A Division Bench of this Court in Shri Ram and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Ors., (2011) 4 ADJ 289 (DB) held, in the context of Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,1953, that there was no public policy which prohibited a person to seek reversal of state of affairs continuing for scores of years if he had a right to do so. It was held that a person can claim his right to a property even after a lapse of considerable period, which right he had neither abandoned nor relinquished, provided the claim is not barred by any law of limitation. 16. The counsel for the respondents has not brought to the notice of the Court any statutory provision attaching finality to the settlement of Mr. Waugh in 1942 or entries in the revenue records as a result of Section 18 of the Act,1950. The claim of the petitioner was also not barred by any law of limitation as it is not the case of respondent nos. 2 to 7 that Sagar Dutt had matured his rights by adverse possession. 17. In order to prove family settlement, the respondent nos. 2 to 7 have relied on the alleged admission of Bal Mukund. The statement of Bal Mukund has been annexed with the writ petition and I have perused the same. Interestingly, the statement of Bal Mukund was disbelieved by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority in proceedings under the LLHT Act on the ground that Bal Mukund had not been able to establish any severance of joint family status between himself and Sagar Dutt. A perusal of the statement of Bal Mukund does not show that there was any admission by Bal Mukund of any family settlement between Bal Mukund, Sukhdei and Sagar Dutt. A perusal of the statement of Bal Mukund does not show that there was any admission by Bal Mukund of any family settlement between Bal Mukund, Sukhdei and Sagar Dutt. In his statement given in proceedings under the LLHT Act, Bal Mukund had stated that the suit property belonged exclusively to Sagar Dutt and was given to him by Ram Swarup. The said statement is not an admission of a family settlement as set-up by the respondent. An admission has to be clear and unambiguous and adverse to the interest of the maker. The proceedings under the LLHT Act were not between Sagar Dutt and Bal Mukund and the statement of Bal Mukund did not adversely affect his interest in the said proceedings. The statement of Bal Mukund only leads to the inference that the suit property was gifted or in any way transferred by Ram Swarup to Sagar Dutt. It is not the case of respondent nos. 2 to 7 that Sagar Dutt got the suit property directly from Ram Swarup either as gift or through any other mode of transfer. The statement of Bal Mukund in proceedings under the LLHT Act cannot be characterized as admission of a family settlement between himself, Bal Mukund and Sukhdei, i.e., the widow of Ram Swarup. Evidently, the statement of Bal Mukund in proceedings under LLHT Act did not prove the family settlement set-up by respondent nos. 2 to 7. Further, the statement of Bal Mukund cannot act as estoppel against the petitioner as there is nothing on record to show and there are no findings by the courts below that Sagar Dutt acted upon the said statement to his detriment. 18. The first appellate court, relying on the bills and the receipts relating to the municipal taxes and the electricity bills which showed that the bills were jointly paid by the three sons of Bal Mukund, held that there was no severance of joint family status between the three sons of Bal Mukund and their descendants. 18. The first appellate court, relying on the bills and the receipts relating to the municipal taxes and the electricity bills which showed that the bills were jointly paid by the three sons of Bal Mukund, held that there was no severance of joint family status between the three sons of Bal Mukund and their descendants. The first appellate court while accepting the case of the petitioner also took note of the fact that the tube-well installed on the suit property was initially registered in the name of Bal Mukund and after the death of Bal Mukund, the said tube-well was registered in the name of the three sons of Bal Mukund and the different charges relating to the said tube-well were jointly paid by the three sons of Bal Mukund and their descendants. The first appellate court, after considering the aforesaid evidence, held that the petitioner was a co-tenure holder of the suit property along with the respondents having 1/3 share in it. The aforesaid evidence does indicate that there was no ouster of Bal Mukund or the petitioner from the suit property. The findings of the first appellate court are supported by the evidence on record. It is true that while recording its finding, the first appellate court did not consider the alleged admission of Bal Mukund. However, as held earlier, the statement of Bal Mukund was not an admission of any family settlement and did not prove the family settlement set-up by respondent nos. 2 to 7. 19. The findings of the first appellate court were findings of facts and did not give rise to any question of law. The weight to be put on a particular piece of evidence is in the realm of appreciation of evidence and does not give rise to any question of law. Even under Section 100 CPC, as it existed prior to the amendment of 1976, a second appeal was maintainable only on a question of law. In Sree Meenakshi Mills, Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1957) AIR SC 49, the Supreme Court referred, with approval, the decision of Privy Council in Wadi Mohammed Vs. Mohd. Even under Section 100 CPC, as it existed prior to the amendment of 1976, a second appeal was maintainable only on a question of law. In Sree Meenakshi Mills, Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, (1957) AIR SC 49, the Supreme Court referred, with approval, the decision of Privy Council in Wadi Mohammed Vs. Mohd. Baksh, (1930) AIR PC 1 wherein it was held that there is no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on ground of erroneous findings of facts, however, gross the error may seem to be and the question whether a fact has been proved when evidence for and against has been properly admitted is necessarily a pure question of fact (Para 21). A reading of the impugned order dated 4.4.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue shows that the Board of Revenue has substituted its own findings after reversing the findings recorded by the first appellate court which the Board of Revenue could not have done even under Section 100 CPC as it existed before the Amendment Act,1976. 20. In its order dated 4.4.1995, the Board of Revenue has held that the first appellate court had ignored the relevant evidence and has referred to certain sales and purchases made separately by the parties to infer that there was a severance of joint family status. The counsel for the respondents has also handed over the statement given by the petitioner before the trial court to show that the petitioner had purchased certain properties. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the trial court and find that the different sale deeds referred as evidence by the trial court were executed either before the death of Ram Swarup or were executed by Bal Mukund. The sale deeds executed before the death of Ram Swarup have no evidentiary value to decide the rights of the parties regarding the suit property because, as held earlier, the said sale deeds only prove that Bal Mukund and Ram Swarup had separated and there was a severance of joint family status between Bal Mukund and Ram Swarup and the issue as to whether Bal Mukund and Ram Swarup continued as a hindu undivided family till the death of Ram Swarup is not relevant for deciding the dispute between the parties. So far as the sale deeds executed by Bal Mukund are concerned, the same also do not help the respondent nos. So far as the sale deeds executed by Bal Mukund are concerned, the same also do not help the respondent nos. 2 to 7 because the said sale deeds, as evident from the order of the trial court were executed in 1953 or 1959. Under the Act,1950, Bal Mukund had absolute right over his Bhumidhari plots including the right to transfer and the sale deeds would not adversely affect the rights of the petitioner in relation to the suit property. The sale deeds allegedly executed by the petitioner and referred in the statement of the petitioner handed over to this Court by the counsel for the respondents show that the petitioner had purchased certain plots from his independent income and has stated that the said plots were purchased by him and Shyam Lal from their independent income. A member of a hindu undivided family is not deprived of his right to purchase property from his independent income and in his own name and not mix-up the same with the joint family property. 21. In view of the reasons given above, the evidence relied upon by the Board of Revenue in its impugned order were not relevant to decide the title of the parties in the suit property and the findings of the first appellate court could not have been set-aside on the ground that the said evidence were not considered by the first appellate court. There was no perversity in the findings of the first appellate court empowering the Board of Revenue to interfere in the said findings exercising its powers under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 read with Section 100 CPC. Evidently, the Board of Revenue had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 331(4) of the Act,1950 read with Section 100 CPC by interfering in the findings of the first appellate court and the impugned order of the Board of Revenue is contrary to law. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 4.4.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 124 of 1993-94 is liable to be set-aside and is, hereby, quashed. The order dated 27.7.1994 passed by the first appellate court in Appeal No. 104 of 1993-94 is restored. The writ petition is allowed.