- (1.) HEARD Shri S.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.1. This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings pertaining to title in respect of agricultural land comprised in khata no. 186. In the basic year when consolidation started in the area in question, the agricultural land in dispute was entered in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner as main tenure holder. The name of O.P. No.1 had been entered in the revenue record under clause 9 (occupant without consent of the main tenure -holder). Original O.P. No. 1 Ram Samujh filed objections under section 9(A) (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The objections were registered as case no. 7608. Consolidation Officer no. 2 Sadar, Disrict Sultanpur decided the case on 15.5.1973 holding that both the parties were joint tenure -holders. The entry of clause -9 was directed to be expunged. Against the said order, both the parties filed appeals. Appeal of petitioner was numbered as appeal no. 847 and appeal of the O.P. No. 1 as appeal no. 853. S.O.C. Sadar Sultanpur decided both the appeals on 10.02.1975 holding that O.P. No. 1 Ram Samujh had not been able to establish his right. Accordingly, appeal of petitioner was allowed and appeal of O.P. No. 1 was dismissed. Basic year entry in the name of the petitioner was directed to continue and name of O.P. No. 1 in clause 9 was directed to be expunged. Against the said order O.P. No. 1 filed revision no. 5667, Ram Samujh vs. Ram Udit. D.D.C. Sultanpur allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 03.6.1976 set -aside the order of the S.O.C. and restored the order of the C.O. directing recording of name of both the parties and declaring them to be tenure -holder to the extent of half share each. This writ petition is directed against the said order. Relevant pedigree is given below : - JUDGEMENT_55_TLALL0_2014.jpg
(2.) THE name of Ram Udit, petitioner was continuing since before Zamindari Abolition and in khasra and khatauni of 1356 and 1369 fasli his name was recorded over the land in dispute exclusively. Chhangu and Dhani had filed a suit for partition against their cousin Swayamvar. Through the decision of the said suit dated 30.10.1916 it was held that half of the property of Neemar belonged to Chhangu and Dhani and rest half to Swayamvar. Jagesar died issueless. Natthu left behind widow Smt Radha. According to opposite party no. 1 Radha remarried with the petitioner, hence, her right in the property extinguished and reverted back to O.P. No. 1. Petitioner asserted that O.P. No. 1 was not son of Chhangu, however, this point was decided against him by the courts below. Even in the writ petition petitioner has shown opposite party no. 1 Ram Samujh to be son of Chhangu. Petitioner claimed that name of father of Swayamvar was Tribhuwan and not Sadhai and father of O.P. No. 1 Chhangu was not son of Jharihag. Petitioner further contended that he did not inherit the property but it was given on patta by Zamidar to him and over some plots name of Ram Samujh O.P. No. 1 was wrongly entered so he executed a registered surrender deed on 18.02.1937 in favour of petitioner. O.P. No.1 asserted that Neemar was also known by the name of Siddhi and Sadhai was also known as Tribhuwan. O.P. No.1 himself filed copy of an application which had been given by Gulabo widow of Swayamvar to the effect that the agricultural land of Swayamvar should be given to petitioner who was second husband of Radha, widow of her son Natthu who had died. The date of application is 31.5.1927. In the earlier Civil Suit of 1916 Swayamvar had admitted that Chhangu and Dhani were his first cousins. The C.O. had mentioned that even though petitioner asserted that Ram Samujh was not son of Chhangu and Dhani, however, petitioner admitted that he was the heir of Chhangu and Dhani.
(3.) IN the written statement petitioner admitted that he(Ram Samujh) married with Radha, however, in his oral statement he denied the said fact. The C.O. rightly held that in view of the admission in the written statement it was proved that petitioner married with Radha. Courts below also held that it was clear from the records that initially the property was entered in the name of Swayamvar. After the decision of the Civil Court of 1916, half of the property was given to Chhangu and Dhani. O.P. No.1 contended that by maximum petitioner could get only half of the property which remained with Swayamvar after Civil Court decree of 1916 and the remaining half which was declared through the decree passed in the said suit to belong to Chhangu and Dhani should be recorded in his name. Petitioner asserted that the entire property reverted back to the Zamindar who executed the patta of the entire property in in his favour.;