M.H. Beg, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners obtained a sale deed on 10 -7 -1962, from one Behari Lal, opposite party No. 4, in respect of plots Nos. 215, 216, 217 and 218, of chak No. 120 in village Bhandoli, in the district of Bulandshahr. The Petitioners then applied Under Section 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act for the mutation of their names on the strength of the sale deed in their favour which had been executed after obtaining the permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Under Section 5(c)(ii) of the Act. Behari, opposite party No. 4, contested on the ground that the sale deed had been obtained by fraud and that full consideration had not been paid for it so that possession was not handed over. One Sadhu Sahkari, opposite party No. 5, also objected on the ground that the plots held were subject to a charge for the payment of Rs. 700/ - so that no mutation should De allowed until the amount had been paid to this objector.
(2.) THE Consolidation Officer found that the vendor was a sirdar arid had deposited ten times the land revenue on 22 -6 -1962, Under Section 134 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that the bhumidhari sanad had been issued sometime between 25 -6 -1962 and 21 -1 -1963. The objector had, however, f died to prove when the bhumidhari sanad had been actually issued. The Consolidation Officer, relying upon the decision of Dwivedi, J. in Tikam Singh v. Chhatrapal Singh, 1963 AWR 395 held that the transferor had no transferable right on the date of sale so that mutation could not be ordered. He also found that the consideration of Rs. 1150/ - was not paid at the time of the registration of the deed but was shown in the deed to have been paid to the vendor earlier. The Consolidation Officer accepted the vendee objector's case that the sale price, for which no separate receipt could be produced, had not been fully paid up. He found the statement of a witness Devi Sahai, about issue of receipts for consideration, to be contradictory. The entries on the plots were, therefore, ordered by the Consolidation Officer to continue in favour of Behari Lal, opposite party No. 4. On appeal, the Settlement Officer also held that the entries of the name of Behari Lal should continue over the four sirdari plots as the vendor had not acquired any bhumidhari right in these on the date of transfer. The entry with respect to plot No. 217 which was a bhumidhari plot, was also ordered to continue in favour of Behari Lal, as the transaction of sale could not be split up into parts in the opinion of the Settlement Officer. The result was that the decision given by the Consolidation Officer was maintained. The Settlement Officer had, however, held the view that the whole consideration for the sale had passed according to the statements in the deed the correctness of which did not seem to him to have been disproved. It maybe that, if the evidence and circumstance supporting the objection had been properly considered or were re examined, a contrary view, in agreement with the Consolidation Officer, more could more properly be taken. The Settlement Officer's finding on this question seems to me to have been recorded without a satisfactory discussion of the whole evidence.
(3.) THE Petitioners then went up in revision Under Section 48 of the Act. The Dy. Director held that mutation should be allowed in respect of the bhumidhari plot but not with regard to the Sirdari plots, as the vendor did not have transferable rights in these on the date of the sale. He did not record any finding on the question whether full consideration for the sale deed had passed evidently because the question of applicability of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act was not raised before him. The whole proceeding from the Consolidation Officer onwards seems to have taken place after 8 -3 -1963 so that the amended provisions of Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act applied. This meant that findings of fact could be recorded Under Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act as amended.;