Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2452 (ALL)

Ram Bali v. Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad

2024-12-03

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Mr. Hari Bans Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Kashi Nath Shukla, learned counsel for contesting respondents. 2. This is second round of litigation. Earlier, the Board of Revenue has allowed the second appeal by unreasoned order. The said order was challenged before this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition No. 31814 of 1991, which was allowed by a detailed order, dated 07.08.2007, and the matter was remitted back to pass fresh order on merit. The relevant part of the same is mentioned hereinafter:- "Irrespective of the submissions as advanced from both sides there is no dispute about the fact that claim of the petitioner was based on a will which is said to have been executed by Ram Raj on 14.2.79. The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit by accepting the will as genuine document. 1st appellate court has (illegible) statement of witnesses i.e. marginal witness viz. Doodh Nath Singh and K. Singh who are said to be the scribe. Statement of witness can be believed/dis-believed but reasons will have to be given for believe/dis-believed. On perusal of judgment of Board of Revenue which is of reversal of the judgment of two courts (illegible) below do not indicate that any assessment what-so-ever of the oral evidence beside other evidence is there. The second appellate court firstly may not be entitled to go into question of facts i.e. about genuineness of the Will (illegible) even if he is entitled to go into the question of act then by entering into that, by pointing out the mistake, he could remand the matter for fresh decision in accordance with law. But he is not to record a finding for the first time on the question of fact and that too in sketchy, cursory and slip short manner. Here is the case where judgment of the Board indicates that he has recorded finding just on surmises. It has been said by the Board of Revenue that after alleged will claim was laid after about three years, and therefore, probably the will was not prepared at that time. This appears to be just on surmises and (illegible) consideration. Here is the case where judgment of the Board indicates that he has recorded finding just on surmises. It has been said by the Board of Revenue that after alleged will claim was laid after about three years, and therefore, probably the will was not prepared at that time. This appears to be just on surmises and (illegible) consideration. This may be relevant circumstances to accept/not to accept the genuineness of the Will but things will have to be probed in the light of the evidence and analysis in some more detail is required. Board of Revenue is not to finalize the claim of the parties in such sketchy manner judgment of Board of Revenue is apparently not based on a real analysis of the oral and documentary evidence rather it is mainly based on own whims and approach of the concerned authority which appears to be just academic in nature. Although certain cases on the point of acceptance of the Will has been noticed but how on the facts they are applicable to the facts of the present case has not been elaborated. If the question before Board of Revenue was that Will on the basis of which plaintiff claims right (illegible) is a genuine document or not then it will be a question of act the consideration of the oral and documentary and evidence in much more detail was required. Reasoning and findings given by the two courts if they are in detail were to be (illegible) and reversed and if they are not in detail (illegible) otherwise Board of Revenue being last court in the hierarchy was required to go into the matter in detail so as to record independent finding which may be permissible in law. Substantial question was also to be framed and was to be answered. Be as it may, this court is of the view that judgment of the Board of Revenue lacks in the required consideration and needed finding has not been recorded. Thus on this short ground judgment of Board of Revenue needs interference. Accordingly, for the reasons given, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby quashed. Thus on this short ground judgment of Board of Revenue needs interference. Accordingly, for the reasons given, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby quashed. Second Appellate Court is directed to revive the second appeal to its original number and decide the same on merits, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without being influenced by any observation, if it has come in this judgment. 07.08.2007." 3. In pursuance of the above order, the Board of Revenue has decided the Second Appeal afresh on a single question of law and allowed the appeal by order dated 19.01.2010 mainly on following grounds and relevant part of the impugned order is mentioned hereinafter:- 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that direction passed by this Court was not followed and the error has been repeated by Board of Revenue and it has interfered in two concurrent findings and passed an order of reversal, without appreciating that no grounds exist for interference. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents has tried to convince this Court that the order passed by this Court was complied with, however, failed to convince this Court on the ground that error has been repeated by the Board of Revenue. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for contesting respondents refers the question of law proposed by an application dated 05.09.2018, which is on record, that as many as eight questions of law were proposed, out of which only one question of law was considered and decided. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of considered opinion that the appeal was not decided under the prescribed procedure and for that Court takes note of judgement passed by Supreme Court in Narayanan Rajendran and another Vs. Lekshmy Sarojini and others , (2009) 5 SCC 264 , which was followed by this Court as well in Hridaya Prakash and Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. , 2024:AHC: 180492 . The Court also takes note that despite eight questions of law were proposed, which appears to be substantial, the same were not even considered in their correct perspective. The direction of this Court was to look into question of validity of Will was also not considered. 8. Vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. , 2024:AHC: 180492 . The Court also takes note that despite eight questions of law were proposed, which appears to be substantial, the same were not even considered in their correct perspective. The direction of this Court was to look into question of validity of Will was also not considered. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back, with a strict observation, that the Board of Revenue shall pass a fresh order in terms of above referred judgements. 9. The Board of Revenue will also take note of proposed questions of law and will decide the Second Appeal, afresh preferably within a period of 6 months. This writ petition is pending for last 14 years and there was an order of status- quo, therefore, in the interest of justice, order of status-quo is extended for a further period of 6 months. The Board of Revenue will remain careful in deciding the Second Appeal and decide it only in accordance with law. 10. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.