LexSMT. RAMA DUBEY (DEAD) BY LRS. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
SMT. RAMA DUBEY (DEAD) BY LRS.
v.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 13, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963 : S{!ction 5-Mutation entries in respect of lands
gifted and bequeathed-Legal heirs opposing after years by filing application
for condonation of delay-Authorities rejecting the application-High Court
C interfering-Held interference not justified.
Two brothers G and H were the recorded tenure holders of certain
lands. In 1960 they executed a registered gift deed in favour of their sister's
daughter viz. the appellant in respect of some movable and immovable
properties. G died in 1969. Also in 1977 before his death H executed a Will
D in respect of two plots of lands.
During the lifetime of H, appellant initiated proceedings before the
Consolidation Officer to mutate her name in the record of rights as
successor in interest on the basis of the gift deed executed by G and H.
E Notice was served on H, but he did not appear. Therefore order was passed
ex-parte mutating her name in respect of 11 plots of land gifted to the
appellant under the gift deed.
F
G
After the death of H, the appellant initiated proceedings, for mutat-
ing her name in respect of the two plots of land bequeathed to her.
Respondent filed writ petitions challenging the orders of the Consolidation
Officer rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by him. The
High Court held that the respondent being the legal heir of G and H,
refusal to condone the delay was not valid in law, set aside the orders and
remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer. Hence these appeals.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1. The finding recorded by ~e authorities was that although
notice was served on H personally, he did not question the claim made by
the appellant in the consolidation proceedings. The respondent, who is
H seeking to come as a legal representative of H cannot have a· higher right
538
/
RAMA DUBEY v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
539
than what the owner himself had. Since the owner who had the notice of A
the proceedings, remained ex-parte, the respondent cannot stand on a
higher footing than him and when the proceedings before the Consolida-
tion Officer had been allowed to become final, it was not open to the
respondent to file after years an appliction under Section 5 of the Limita·
tion Act to condone the dealy and to ask for the benefit of hearing. The B
Consolidation Officer rightly refused to condone the delay and therefore,
the High Court was not right in interfering with the said well i:easoned
order. (540-G, H 541-A]
2. With regard to the Will executed by H in respect of two plots of
land, although proceedings we.re initiated after his demise in collateral C
proceedings initiated by the respondent himself, it was found that the
respondents were inimically disposed to H and that the appellant was
looking after her uncles G and H. In that view of the situation, the will is
well-founded. When once the Will is accepted by the authorities, there is
nothing left for the respondents to claim their rights as alleged legal
representatives of H. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not D
justified in interfering with the order made in respect of the properties
covered under the will. (541-B, CJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2986 of
1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.85 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. ll059of1980.
S.N. Singh, H.L. Srivastava, B.M. Sluuma and T.N. Singh for the
E
Appellant.
F
R.D. Upadhyay for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Application for substitution is allowed.
These appeals arise from the Judgment of the High Court of Al-
lahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 11059/80 datea Deceinber 4, 1985 and C.M.W.P.
No. 9127/80 of even date.
G
The admitted facts are that Gajadhar and Harjeet are. the recorded H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
tenure holders of the lands in Plots Nos. 1072 (0.33 acres), 1082 (0.40
acres), 1083 (0.10 acres), 1202 (0.30 acres), 1203 (0.30 acres), 1204 (0.17
acres), 1210 (0.22 acres), 1069/3 (0.10 acres), 1106 (0.73 acres), 1199 (0.16
acres) and 1329 (0.55 acres) situated in Village Mahen Babu Tehsil Salem-
pur, Distt. Deoria (U.P.). On February 20, 1960 they had executed a
B
registered gift deed in favour of their sister's daughter Smt. Rama the
appellant not only in respectExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.