VIRENDRA NATH THR. P.A. HOLDER R.R. GUPTA versus MOHD. JAMIL AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 14-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-I 
-
·~ 
VIRENDRA NATH THR. P.A. HOLDER R.R. GUPTA 
A 
v. 
MOHD. JAMIL AND ORS. 
JULY 14, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 : 
S. 210-Claim for recording as Sirdar alleging adverse possession--
Recorded owners resisting the claim contending possession of claimant as 
mortgagee-Held, revisional court correctly held the claimant not entitled C 
to be recorded as Sirdar-Though the mortgage deed was unregistered and 
being in possess ion of mortgagee could not be produced, evidence could 
be admitted for collateral purpose of ascertaining the nature of possession-
Evidence-Oral evidence supported by khasra entries-Evidentiary value 
of-U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-S. 9A. 
D 
Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (claimant) filed an 
objection u/s 9A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for 
recording him as Sirdar under s. 210 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on the basis of his alleged E 
adverse possession on the land in dispute. The claim was accepted. The 
original recorded owners filed an appeal contending that in view of 
khasra entires for the basic Fasli years 1359 and 1361, the claimant 
came in possession of the land as a mortgagee and as such he could 
not acquire any title by adverse possession. The appellate authority 
dismissed the appeal holding that mortgage was not evidenced by any F 
registered tlocument and oral evidence of mortgage could not be relied 
on. The revision of the recorded owners was allowed holding that 
possession of the claimant could be only permissive as a mortgagee. 
The High Court in the writ petition filed by the claimant reversed the 
revisional order holding that plea of mortgage was raised for the first G 
time in revision. Aggrieved, the original recorded owners filed the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the state of the evidence on retord, the revisional H 
93 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the claimant 
who came in possession of the land as mortgagee, cannot be recorded 
as Sirdar or. Bhumidar under s. 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition 
and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (98-B-C) 
B 
1.2. From the orders passed by the authorities under the U.P. 
Consolidation· of Holdings Act 1953, it is apparent that throughout the 
stand of the original recorded owner was that the claimant came in 
possession of the land as a mortgagee. The argument of permissive 
possession was advanced before the revisional authority on the plea of 
mortgage. The High Court committed a serious error in upsetting the 
C judgment of the revisional court on the ground of alleged want of plea 
of permissive possession by the original recorded owner. [98-D-E) 
1.3. The High Court had no justification to upset the decision of 
the revisional authority. The earliest khasra records clearly show 
D nature of possession of the claimant on the lands as mortgagee. Even 
though mortgage-deed which was unregistered and being in possession 
of mortgagee could not be produced by the mortgagor, evidence could 
be admitted for collateral purpose of ascertaining the nature of 
possession of the claimant. There is no evidence that the possession of 
E the claimant as mortgagee ever became adverse to the knowledge of. 
the original owner, that is, the mortgagor. [96-G-H; 97-A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4007 of 
1999. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.97 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 3082 of 1975. 
T.N. Singh, V.K. Singh and S.N. Singh for the Appellant. 
G Respondents. 
J.P. Goyal, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for K.K. Gupta, for the 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DHARMADHIKARI, J. : This appeal has been preferred against the 
H judgment dated 07 .8.1997 of the High Court of Allahabad whereby 
VIRENDRA NA TH v. MOHD. JAMIL [DHARMADHIKARI, J.] 95 
revisional order dated I 0.2.1975 passed by the Deputy Director of A 
Consolidation, Allahabad, has been set aside and the order dated 26.3.1974 
passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been 
restored. 
Relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under :-
B 
In relation to the lands in question, an objection was filed by Jan 
Mohammad (represented now by the respondents) in the court of Consoli-
dation Officer under provision of section 9A 

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