DESHRAJ Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AT ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri A.K. Yadav for respondent No. 5.

(2.) The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 19th July, 2017, passed by Board of Revenue, Allahabad in second appeal no. 12 of 2006-07; 31st Aug., 2006, passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal no. 86 of 2002-03; and 11th Aug., 2003, passed by Additional Pargana Adhikari, Lalitpur in suit No. 74 of 2002-03.

(3.) A perusal of the record would reveal that Bhujbal (predecessor-in-interest of respondents 6 to 12), Kashi Ram (respondent no. 13) and Teeju (respondent no. 14) instituted suit no. 74 of 2002-03 against Sunne (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner), under Sec. 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for being declared co-bhumidhars with Sunne over several plots. The plaint case was that the disputed plots were ancestral holding coming from the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs, namely, Damru. It was claimed that Damru had only a daughter named Maya, who was married to Natthu. Smt. Maya had four sons, namely, Sunne (defendant No. 3), predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner; Bhujbal (plaintiff No. 1); Kashi Ram (plaintiff No. 2) and Teeju (plaintiff No. 3). It was claimed that Sunne being the elder brother got his name exclusively entered in the revenue record and therefore the entry should be treated as entry in representative capacity and a declaration be made that all the four brothers had equal share in the plots concerned. The petitioner had filed written statement in which there was no specific denial of the pedigree disclosed by the plaintiffs although, in paragraph 15 of the written statement, it was stated that the plaintiff No. 3, namely, Teeju, was not son of Natthu. However, there was no specific denial of the statement that he was son of Smt. Maya, the daughter of Damru, from whom the plaintiffs had set up their title. In the written statement, the defendant No. 3, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, had sought to develop a plea that the plots were exclusive property of the petitioner and he was in exclusive possession, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.