AMAR NATH versus KEWLA DEVI &ANR.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 22-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 677 
AMAR NATH 
v. 
KEWLADEVI &ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2007) 
A 
APRIL 22, 2014 
B 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s.100- Second appeal- Substantial question of law 
-
High Courl has committed a grave error in procedure and c 
failed to discharge its duty by notlmming substantial question 
of law and setting aside the judgment and decree of first 
appellate court- It is a fit case to restore the judgment and 
decree passed by first appellate courl wherein it declared 
that appellant was the son of the grand-son of respondent's o 
paternal grand-father thereby holding that the order passed 
by the Consolidation Officer is void and illegal - Judgment 
of High Courl set aside and that of first appellate courl 
restored. 
Suit: 
E 
Suit claiming title to suit properly and for declaration -
Plaintiff's case that order of Consolidation Officer was 
obtained by fraud- Held: Order of Consolidation Officer was 
obtained on the basis offraud by defendants- Consolidation 
Officer has also committed fraud on appellant, by accepting F 
withdrawal of his objection and not going into the issue 
whether he is the rightful heir; with a right in half-share of suit 
properly - Suit was not barred by s.331 of U.P Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act nor u/s 49 of Consolidation 
of Hoidings Act as it was a suit for possession based on title G 
involving question of 'sonship', which was not within the 
jurisdiction of authorities under the two Acts - Uttar Pradesh 
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950- s.331 -
Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 - s. 49 -
Jurisdiction - Fraud. 
H 
677 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 14 S.C.R. · 
A 
Property Law: 
Agricultural land - Held: When trial court, on the basis 
of the evidence on record, has held that it was proved that 
the appellant was the son of the grandson of respondent's 
paternal grandfather, then automatically the court should 
B have given half the portion of the suit land to him along with 
defendant -Right of appellant cannot simply be 
extinguished because of defendants' plea that he has entered 
into a compromise -
Defendants have taken undue 
advantage of appellant's illiteracy and Consolidation Officer 
C has abdicated his role by allowing the objection of appellant 
to be withdrawn and by not examining whether or not 
appellant was indeed the son of defendant's grandfather -
Order of the Consolidation Officer is thus bad in law and it 
has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice -
Order of 
D Consolidation Officer is declared as null and void on grounds 
of patent illegality and acting with legal malice -
Appellant 
is entitled to. be recorded in the revenue records as half share 
owner of the land in dispute -
Competent authority is directed 
to record the name of appellant in revenue records as half 
E share owner of the land in dispute. 
The appellant filed a suit for possession of the suit 
property and prayed for quashing of order dated 
14.2.1970 passed by the Consolidation Officer, on the 
ground that defendant no. 1 in connivance with 
F defendant no. 2, taking benefit of the appellant's illiteracy, 
recorded their names over the suit land and the 
Consolidation Officer rejected his objection holding that 
it was not pressed and directed that existing entries 
would continue. The plaintiff alleged that the order of 
G the Consolidation Officer was obtained by playing fraud 
on him. The trial court held that the appellant was the 
·son of'VN', namely the brother of the father of defendant 
no. 1, but dismissed the suit holding the same, inter alia, 
barred bys. 331 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land 
H Reforms Act, 1950 as also s. 49 of the UP Consolidation 
AMAR NATH v. KEWLADEVI &ANR. 
679 
of Holdings Act 1953 as well as by limitation. However, · A 
the first appellate court decreed the suit. In the second 
appeal filed by the defendants-respondents the High 
Court set aside the judgment ·and decree of the first 
appellate court. 
In the instant appeal filed by the plaintiff, the B 
questions for consideration before the court were as 
follows: 
1. 
Whether the High Court was correct in deciding 
the appeal without formulating substantial C 
questions of law and whether the matter must 
be remitted back to the High Court?_ 
2. 
Whether the suit of the appellant was barred 
by s.49 of the UP Consolidation of Land 
Holdings Act and s.331 of the UP Zamindari 0 
Abo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.