Lakhpati vs D.D.C.

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Sarad Dwivedi, for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Yadav, for contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer, dated 23.4.1989, dismissing the objection of the petitioner and Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 28.7.1989, allowing the revision of Thakurdin and others and setting aside the order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, dated 22.1.1985, in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The dispute relates to plot 1354 (1-5-0 bigha) of village Khalispur Gopalpur, pargana Aldemau, district Sultanpur, which was recorded in the names of Lakhpati (the petitioner), Rajdeo, Thakurdin, Jhuri and Mangal (now represented by respondents-3 to 5) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), in basic consolidation record. Smt. Lakhpati filed an objection for deleting the names of the respondents from the land in dispute. It has been stated by the petitioner that Sita Ram son of Ram Badan, Ram Murat son of Ram Prasad, Ram Lochan and Ram Sabad sons of Darbari Lal were original grove holders of the land in dispute having 1/4th share each. Sita Rama and Ram Murat executed a registered sale deed dated 20.4.1959 in respect of their 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner and her name was mutated in the revenue record on its basis. Thereafter, Ram Lochan executed an unregistered sale deed dated 8.1.1961 in respect of his 1/4 share and Ram Sabad executed an unregistered sale deed dated 19.12.1968 in respect of his 1/4 share. Ram Lochan, for himself and as guardian of Ram Sabad surreptitiously executed a registered sale deed dated 16.5.1961 in respect of their 1/2 share, in favour of Mahabir, father of the respondents, although he had already sold his share to the petitioner and had no authority to sell the share of Ram Sabad. Sale deed dated 16.5.1961 is void and no right can be derived by the respondents on its basis.

The respondents contested the case and stated that Ram Lochan, for himself and as guardian of Ram Sabad had executed a registered sale deed dated 16.5.1961 in respect of their 1/2 share in the land in dispute, in favour of Mahabir and on its basis, their names were mutated in the revenue record by order dated 16.7.1969. The petitioner has fabricated an ante-dated unregistered sale deed dated 8.1.1961 allegedly executed by Ram Lochan and thereafter unregistered sale deed dated 19.12.1968 allegedly executed by Ram Sabad but these sale deed were not accepted by the revenue authorities and the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.7.1969 passed in mutation case was dismissed on 23.1.1971. The respondents were put in possession through sale deed dated 16.5.1961 but the petitioner never filed any suit for their ejectment. After about 20 years, objection was filed in consolidation, as such claim of the petitioner, if any was barred.

The case was tried by Consolidation Officer. The petitioner did not enter the witness box and examined Ram Awadh as her witness and filed original sale deed dated 7.1.1961 and copy of written statement of Ram Lochan dated 20.10.1970 allegedly filed in the mutation case, admitting execution of sale deed dated 7.1.1961. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 23.4.1982 held that Mahadeo filed mutation case on 6.5.1970 while the petitioner filed mutation case on 25.6.1970. Sale consideration of Rs. 400/- was shown in the sale deed dated 16.5.1961, while sale consideration of Rs. 95/- was shown in the sale deed dated 7.1.1961, which shows that only to avoid registration sale consideration of less than Rs. 100/- was shown. Original sale deed dated 19.12.1970 was not filed. On these findings objection of the petitioner was dismissed.

The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 604) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 22.1.1985, held that order passed in mutation proceeding did not operate as res-judicata in title proceeding. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, which was abated by order dated 10.12.1976 due to consolidation as such the proceedings in consolidation is not barred by limitation. In 1961, registration of the sale deed below Rs. 100/- was not required. After sale deed dated 7.1.1961, Ram Lochan left with no right to execute sale deed on 16.5.1961. On these findings the appeal was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer was set aside and the names of the respondents were directed to be deleted from the land in dispute.

The respondents filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 602/4241) against the aforesaid order. Revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by his judgment dated 20.7.1989 held that Ram Awadh, who was examined by the petitioner to prove due execution of the sale deed, has stated that he did not remember as to whether Ram Lochan had signed the sale deed dated 7.1.1961 or affixed his thumb marks. He could not name the other witness of the sale deed. He could not state that who had signed the sale deed. As such execution of the sale deed was not proved by this witness. Stamp of the sale deed was purchased from Shahganj while sale deed was alleged to be executed at Kadipur, which is a tahsil head quarter and stamps were available there. No reliance can be placed on the copy of alleged written statement of Ram Lochan filed in mutation case, who never appeared before any Court. On these findings, the revision was allowed and order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation was set aside and order of Consolidation Officer was affirmed. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in 1961, registration of the sale deed of immovable property below Rs. 100/- was not required. Ram Lochan already sold his share in the land in dispute through sale deed dated 7.1.1961 to the petitioner and left with no right to sell on 16.5.1961. He had no right to sell share of Ram Sabad. The respondents can have no title over the land in dispute. Execution of the sale deed dated 7.1.1961 was proved by Ram Awadh however in his old age blindness was developed as such in Court he could not state as to whether sale deed was signed or thumb marked by Ram Lochan. In the circumstances execution of the sale deed was found to be proved by Appellate Authority. Revisional Court has illegally interfered with the findings of fact.

I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. Settlement Officer Consolidation did not record any findings regarding due execution of the sale deed dated 7.1.1961. He only for the reason that in 1961, registration of the sale deed below Rs. 100/- was not required, found it to be valid and held that after sale deed dated 7.1.1961, Ram Lochan left with no right to sell on 16.5.1961. The Consolidation Officer found that the petitioner applied for mutation of her name on the basis of the sale deed dated 7.1.1961 on 25.6.1970 while the respondents filed mutation case on 6.5.1970. Sale consideration of Rs. 400/- was shown in the sale deed dated 16.5.1961, while sale consideration of Rs. 95/- was shown in the sale deed dated 7.1.1961, which shows that only to avoid registration sale consideration of less than Rs. 100/- was shown. For these reasons, it was held that sale deed dated 7.1.1961 is a suspicious document. Original sale deed dated 19.12.1968 was not filed before Consolidation Authorities. Deputy Director of Consolidation found that Ram Awadh, did not remember as to whether Ram Lochan had signed the sale deed dated 7.1.1961 or affixed his thumb marks. He could not name the other witness of the sale deed. He could not state that who had signed the sale deed. Stamp of the sale deed was purchased from Shahganj while sale deed was alleged to be executed at Kadipur, which was a tahsil head quarter and stamp were available there. No reliance can be placed on the copy of alleged written statement of Ram Lochan filed in mutation case, who never appeared before any Court nor any one had proved that this was filed by Ram Lochan. Otherwise also after execution of sale deed dated 16.5.1961, admission of Ram Lochan, contrary to the sale deed was not liable to be accepted as against the respondents. Reasons given by Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation for ignoring the sale deed dated 7.1.1961 are valid reasons. Finding of facts recorded by them cannot be interfered by this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.