Narsingh vs Ramapati @ Patte and Others

N.K. Mehrotra, J.—This is a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2003 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Balrampur, in Civil Appeal No.74 of 2001 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balrampur dismissing the suit No.467 of 1988.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents/ caveator and after perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiff/appellant and respondent No.1 are real brothers and respondents No.2 and 3 are the sons of the respondent No.1. Tulsi was common ancestor of the appellant and the respondents. Tulsi had four sons Ram Phal, Ram Deen, Bhagwan Deen and Satai. Satai had two sons Narsing and Ramapati, appellant and respondent No.1. Ramapti had two sons Jagmohan and Ram Adhari the respondents No.2 and 3 in this appeal.

Plaintiff/appellant filed Suit No.467 of 1988 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Balrampur claiming the relief of Prohibitory injunction and the cancellation of the saledeed in question, impleading late Satai as defendant No.1 and Jagmohan and Ram Adhar (Respondents No.2 and 3), as defendants No.2 and 3. During the pendency of the Suit Satai died and he was substituted by Ramapati respondent No.1. The saledeed in question was executed by Satai in favour of respondents No.2 and 3. The suit was filed on the ground that the land in question is the ancestral property coming in the family of the appellant from the three generations and Shri Satai held the same in the representative capacity as Karta of the family for the benefit of the whole family. It was also alleged that there is no conscious execution of the sale deed by late Satai in favour of the respondents No.2 and 3. Satai was aged about 71 years and he was defrauded by the respondents. It was alleged that the sale deed is a fraudulent document and without consideration.

The learned trial court dismissed the suit and the appeal filed against that judgment has also been dismissed. The two courts below have recorded the findings that in the Revenue record the name of late Satai is entered as tenure holder with the transferable rights; that tenure holder transferred his land on his own, the plaintiff was born after the abolition of Zamindari; that Satai was legally competent to transfer the land; that late Satai has not denied the receipt of the sale consideration during his life time and that late Satai has not taken any such plea that the execution of the sale deed was not the conscious transaction on his part.

Besides the aforesaid findings the first appellate court has also held that besides the sale deed in question late Satai had also executed a sale deed of his 1/3rd portion in Plot No.185 and 187 in consideration of Rs.10,000/ in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 (respondents No.2 and 3) in which plaintiff was the witness in the margin of the sale deed and after the execution of the sale deed in question, the mutation proceedings took place and the plaintiff did not raise any objection at the time of mutation. It has also been held by the appellate court that the plaintiff had not adduced any evidence to show the nature of tenancy right of late Satai, the executant of the sale deed. It has also been held that the ancestral land coming from another ancestral Tulsi has been divided into four sons of Tulsi and the area which came into the share of each son is 1.29 acre, while the area of the land of the sale deed in question is the area of 1.81 acre. The plaintiff has sought the relief of injunction over the land having the area 1.65 acre only. On the basis of this evidence a finding has been recorded that the disputed land is the salf acquired land of Satai.

In view of the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by two courts below, there is no ground to interfere in the aforesaid finding of facts. No substantial question of law arises after seeing the findings of facts recorded by the two courts below. Two legal issues were framed by the trial court with regard to the suit being barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, and Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act but both these issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances I find that no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. In result the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

(Appeal dismissed)