GAJRAJ AND OTHERS Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-9-34
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 07,1965

Gajraj And Others Appellant
VERSUS
The Board Of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM CHANDRA AND ANR. V. JAITH MAL AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
ADDL. COMMISSIONER HAS RELIED ON PRATAP SINGH V. MATRU MAL AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
SHADI AND ORS. V. AHMAD HUSAIN AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
SHITAL PRASAD V. BOARD OF REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
BHEEK CHAND VS. PARBHUJI [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.N. Singh, J. - (1.)THIS writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of a suit Under Section 229B of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.)THE Petitioners filed a suit Under Section 229B of the UPZA and LR Act for a declaration that they were the sirdars of the land in suit and that the Defendants had no right in the land in suit. Their case was that they had obtained the land in July 1950 from the Zamindars by virtue of a written lease deed executed on 5th November 1950 and since the Defendants were unnecessarily interfering with their possession proceedings Under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure were started and the property stood attached Under Section 146 Code of Criminal Procedure. They were directed to get their rights declared; hence they filed the suit in the civil court but since the civil court was of opinion that the Petitioners could get relief from the revenue court they instituted the present suit.
The suit of the Petitioners was contested by the Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 on the ground that the contesting Defendants were tenants on Batai rent from before the alleged lease in favour of the Plaintiffs. They alleged that their names were wrongly not entered in the patwari's papers owing to the collusion of the Patwari and the Zamindar. They further claimed the right of a hereditary tenant Under Section 180 Sub -clause (2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act and they asserted that the alleged lease said to have been executed by the Zamindar in favour of the Plaintiffs was collusive and fictitious which conferred no rights on the Plaintiffs Petitioners.

(3.)THE trial court held that the Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 were the sirdars of the plots in suit and granted the said declaration in favour of the Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4. The contesting Defendants preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court and the lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the suit on the following findings:
(1) That the lease in favour of the Plaintiffs was not legally proved because one Mulla witness was tendered to prove the lease and the witness being an illiterate person could not prove the document as such the Plaintiff's title to the land in dispute was not proved.

(2) That the cause of action as alleged in paragraph 9 of the plaint arose" on 28th June 1952 as such a suit under Section 229B could not be filed in respect of a cause of action that had accrued before the date of vesting.

(3) That whether the Defendants contesting were sajhidars or Bataidars of the Khudkasht land of the plaintiffs they became hereditary tenants with the result that the Zamindar could not confer tenancy right on the Plaintiffs Petitioners.

The Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the lower appellate court on the second and third points but did not decide the first.

;


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