DHARAMRAJ Vs. CHHITAN
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-69
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on November 06,2006

DHARAMRAJ Appellant
VERSUS
CHHITAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

CHHAIL BIHARI VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, LAKHIMPUR KHERI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA CHOUBEY VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
DEWAN CONSULTANTS AND PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-11-331] [REFERRED TO]
MANGROO VS. D D C [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTA DEVI VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
P.SHANMUGAM VS. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-225] [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(PAT)-2019-5-89] [REFERRED TO]
A RAVI VS. CHAIRMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-68] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP SHARMA VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION [LAWS(SC)-2010-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
RUCHHA VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GORAKHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED VS. A.S. RAGHAVENDRA [LAWS(SC)-2024-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
UTI ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ALL INDIA UNIT TRUST EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION [LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AWADH VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION SULTANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-139] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH AND ORS. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ( ADMINISTRATION) FAIZABAD AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-11-88] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th March 1987 passed in W.P. No. 2736/1976 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) whereby the Writ Petition filed by Chhitan, Chandrika and Karia, a minor son of Jai Ram, represented by his mother and guardian Smt. Sonara being respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal were allowed and decision of the consolidation authorities were set aside. By allowing the said Writ petition, the appellants were deprived of their alleged shares in ancestral tenancy and giving sole tenancy rights to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 over the land of Khata No. 111 in Village Balrampur, Pargana and Tehsil Tanda, District Faizabad (hereinafter referred to as the "said land"). We are not concerned with the other plots relating to Khata No. 13 as the disputes raised in this case appeal does not relate to the said land. Therefore, we restrict ourselves in this appeal in respect of the dispute only relating to the said land.
(2.)Objections filed under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 ( in short "the Act") by the parties in this appeal in respect of the entries in Khata No. 111 and 13 relating to basic year 1378 Fasli were referred to the Consolidation Officer for adjudication. We may reiterate, as noted herein earlier, that in this appeal the questions need to be decided only in respect of the lands in Khata No. 111 and not Khata No. 13. It is not in dispute that the lands relating to Khata No. 111 in the basic year were recorded in the name of Saltanati. Subsequently, in the year 1338 F this land was recorded in the name of Adhin by way of settlement. On the death of Adhin the said land was recorded in the name of Jabbar and then subsequently in the name of Jai Ram. Since Jai Ram was not traceable in his place Smt. Sonara his wife and minor son Karia had represented the estate as the legal heirs and representatives of Jai Ram. Smt. Sonara entered into a settlement with Chittan son of Dubri, Chandrika son of Sripat. Thereby the minor Karia represented by his mother Smt. Sonara agreed to have co-tenancy rights in respect of Khata No. 111, with Chittan and Chandrika. On the other hand, the appellants representing Daya Ram and others jointly claimed co-tenancy rights in respect of the said land on the ground that the said lands were acquired by their ancestor Saltanati and thereafter Jokhan son of Adhin was recorded in the representative capacity.
(3.)According to the appellants, the family remained joint till some time when the land was recorded in the name of Adhin. Binda and Sanehi on the death of Salatanati separated from their joint family and Adhin separated with his nephews Bhulai and Dukhi. In this manner, the said land of Jokhan and Salatanati were distributed in the joint family and the shares were divided equally. However, the said lands continued to be recorded in the name of Adhin. After some time, Bhulai and Dukhi, who were joint with Adhin also separated from him and by partition the lands were divided. In the same manner, Binda and Sanehi lived jointly for some time and thereafter separated by partition. The entire lands of Khata No. 111 continued to remain recorded in the name of Adhin, even though Dukhi, Bhulai, Binda and Sanehi cultivated their lands separately. After the death of Adhin, the said lands came to be recorded in the name of his son Jabbar and thereafter on the death of Jabbar the same was recorded in the name of his son Jai Ram. At this stage, to understand the Pedigree of the parties, it would be appropriate to give a Pedigree chart herein now which is not now in dispute as was given by the appellants.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.