LexRAM AVADH & ORS. versus RAM DAS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C:R. 627 RAM AVADH & ORS. A v. RAM DAS & ORS . . (Civil Appeal No. 5570 Of 2001) MAY 14, 2008 B [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] + Uttar Pradesh consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - s. 9 (2) and 48 - Consolidation proceedings - Objection of vendee of the land seeking entry of their names in the revenue records c - Co-tenure holders of the vendor filing objection that the ven- dors having no right in the property could not have sold it- Objection of vendees allowed by Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer, on the finding that predecessor of the vendors was co-sharer of the land in the Khatauni 1356 Fasli- D Revisional court disbelieving the findings of courts below re- versed their orders - High Court upholding the order of revisional court - On appeal, held: Revisional court and High Court should not have disturbed the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below- They were not right in raising doubt about E the entry of the name of vendor's predecessor in the Khatauni - In view of the entries in 1356 Fasli, and the same not having been challenged, vendors were also entitled to benefit uls 20 of Zamindari Abolition Act - Vendors were recorded Bhumidars and co-tenure holders - Revisional Court had no jurisdiction ,.J. uls 48 to set aside the concurrent findings of fact- Uttar Pradesh F ZamindariAbolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951-s. 20- Trans- fer of Property Act, 1882- s. 55 (1) (b). Appellants had purchased the property in question from the persons who were the co-tenure holders with the respon- G dents. In consolidation proceedings in respect of the land, appellants filed objections before the Consolidation Officer for recording their names in place of the vendors in the rev- enue records. Respondents also filed objections contend- 627 H 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A ing that the suit property exclusively belonged to their father ~ and the vendors or their father having no share in the prop- erty, the same could not have been sold by the vendors. Con- solidation Officer allowed the objections of the appellants on the finding that the entries in the Khatauni 1356 Fasli and 1357 B Fasli revealed that the name of vendors' father was present alongwith father of the respondents and he became Sirdar in 1350 Fas11;· and that the vendors' name has been entered in + the Khata in-1368 Fasli as legal heirs after their father's death. Appeal before Settlement Officer was dismissed upholding c the findings by Consolidation Officer. Revision petition u/s. 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was allowed up holding interalia the entry of vendors' father in Khatauni 1356 Faslt~ In the writ petition filed by the appellants, the order of revisional court was upheld. D In appeal to this court appellant contended interalia that Revisional court as well as High Court adopted an ~ erroneous approach by relying on the result of a litiga- tion in respect of some other land in a different village wherein father of the respondents was held to be exclu- E sive lessee; that they were entitled to benefit of s. 20 of .. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 • ~ which provides that entries in the base year 1356 Fasli are final and confer all rights on the occupants who could be entitled to retain possession thereof; and that F revisional court did not have the jurisdiction to set aside ...\... the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Allowing the appeal, the court HELD: 1.1 It is an admitted fact that in the year 1356 G Fasli, the name of father of the vendors was entered along with father of the respondents in the Khatauni and yet it was held that this must be wrong because in respect of -1 land in another village, the lease was held to be exclu- sively that of the father of the respondents and not for the H benefit of father of the vendors. The result of that litiga- RAM AVADH & ORS. v. RAM DAS & 629 ORS. A tion should not have any bearing on the present case. This, A has been given exaggerated and undue importance by both the revisional and the High Court. The fact remains that name of father of the vendors was entered in 1356 Fas/i, which was not challenged by the respondents till 1366 Fasli i.e. for al- most 11 years. From 1356 Fasli onwards, throughout, the B names of the father of vendors and thereafter of the vendors ..... are continuing in the revenue record and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.