B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 16-12-72 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). Plot Nos. 43/3, 186/1, 131, 134 and 195 contained in Khata No. 3 are in dispute. In the basic year these plots were entered in the name of the petitioner and respondent no. 2, who were the real sisters. An objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act was filed by respondent no. 2 alleging that she was the real sister of the petitioner who was married and was residing with her husband in Village Kaithi. It was further alleged that the petitioner was in the need of money and wanted to dispose of the plots. Consequently, the petitioner sold her half share by a sale deed in 1967 in favour of respondent no. 2. The name of respondent no. 2 must be entered and the name of the petitioner may be expunged The petitioner on the other hand, filed another objection alleging that she was married and resides in village Kaithi with her husband and her half share in the plots was managed by respondent no. 2, her real sister, in whom she has reposed full confidence. It was alleged that respondent no. 2 told her that Bhumidhari Sanad may be acquired and for that purpose the petitioner would have to come to Tahsil and make signatures on different papers so that the plots may also be actually divided between the petitioner and respondent no. 2. But instead of obtaining Bhumidhari Sanad, respondent no. 2 being a clever lady, obtained thumb impressions of the petitioner on a number of papers and manoeuvred to convert it into a sale deed and the same was fraudulently obtained and may be set aside and her name may continue to be entered over half share. Oral and documentary evidence were led.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer by his order dated 26-4-72 decided the case against respondent no. 2. THE appeal filed by respondent no. 2 was also dismissed by order dated 21-8-72. But her revision was allowed by the impugned order dated 16-12-72. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that respondent no. 2 was the real sister of the petitioner and she was worldly wise, whereas the petitioner was a simple and illiterate lady and was entitled to protection extended to a Pardanashin lady. Further in view of the provisions of Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden was on respondent no. 2, as she was in a position of active confidence, to prove the bonafide of the transaction. But she failed to prove it. Further a number of documentary and oral evidence was led. The petitioner examined herself in the witness box and on her behalf Matadin, Dhani Ram and Ballu, three witnesses were examined. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider their statements. The statements of witnesses of the petitioner were relied upon by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has no advantage of watching the demeanour of witnesses.;