Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) A suit under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was instituted by the respondent Buddhi. His case was that Harchandi was the bhumidhar of the disputed land and he had one son, namely, the plaintiff. Buddhi who inherited the plots in dispute. The suit was contested by the petitioners, Jhabla and Leeladhar. Their case was that Harchandi had two sons: the plaintiff Buddhi and Kama father of the petitioner Leeladhar and Jhabla and that Kama thus had a one half share in the property in dispute, which the petitioners have succeeded to in the Trial Court the plaintiff/respondents and the petitioners/defendants adduced oral and documentary evidence. Some of the material documents, which were filed by the parties are the kutumb register relating to house No. 46 in which Buddhi is shown as son of Harchandi and of house No. 35 in which Karna is shown as son of Baula (and not of Harchandi). The extract of member register of Brindavan Bangar Kshetriya Sehkari' Samiti was also filed in which Kama is shown as son of Baula. The petitioners filed the khatauni 1363-F of village Ahilyaganj of Khata No. 39 and of another Khata of the same village. In these khataunis the father's name of Buddhi and Kama is entered as Harchandi. Some dispute about the filing of this khatauni has been raised by the Counsel for the respondents about which I shall advert later. According to the respondents Paro was the wife of Baula and on Baula's death she had re-married Harchandi. The Trial Court after considering tire oral and documentary evidence recorded the finding that re-marriage of Paro with Harchandi was not proved. The Trial Court also found that the kutumb register and members register of the co-operative society were not proved. The Trial Court relied upon the khatauni of village Ahilyaganj and recorded the finding that both Buddhi and Kama are sons of Harchandi and that in respect of the land in village Ahilyaganj the respondents also got a share. An appeal was preferred by the respondents, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 12.12.1980. The Appellate Court found that the kutumb register was proved by the statement of the Panchayat Sewak. He did not rely upon the khatauni of village Ahilyaganj. On the basis of the oral evidence he allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. A second appeal was preferred by the petitioners, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue.
(2.) I have heard Sri G.N. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by S/Sri Anupam Kulshrestha and Rahul Chaturvedi for the petitioners and Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri B.B. Paul for the respondents.
(3.) It was submitted by Sri G.N. Verma, learned Senior Counsel that the Appellate Court recorded a finding of reversal but has not dealt with the points on the basis of which the Trial Court had dismissed the suit. It appears that the most important documents that were filed by the respondents were the extracts of the kutumb register pertaining to house No. 46 in which Buddhi is entered as son of Harchandi and of Kutumb Register of house No. 25 in which Kama is entered as a son of Baula. These papers have been relied upon by the Appellate Court. The Trial Court did not place reliance on the documents as it found that they were not proved according to law. It appears that before the present suit an earlier suit under section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was fought of between the parties and in that suit the Panchayat Sewak was examined to prove the kutumb register. The Additional Commissioner relied upon the statement of the Panchayat Sewak in holding that the kutumb register has been proved. Sri R.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the entire records of the suit under section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in which the statement of the Panchayat 'Sewak was recorded was summoned. Moreover it is submitted that the kutumb register is a public document within tire meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and the certified copy of the said document is admissible. The objection of the Trial Court to the admissibility of the extract of the kutumb register is that its copy was not issued by the Pradhan who is the competent authority to issue a copy thereof under section 109 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Undoubtedly the copy of the kutumb register, which was filed was not issued by the Pradhan. It was, therefore, not a duly issued certified copy. The Panchayat Sewak was not examined in the present suit. The statement of the Panchayat Sewak in the earlier suit cannot be read in evidence in the present suit even though the record of the earlier suit may have been summoned and the said statement is inadmissible in evidence as it does not fulfil the requirement of any provision of the Evidence Act relating to relevancy of statements given in previous proceedings. The extract of the kutumb register relied upon cannot be regarded as proved. The extract of the member register of tire co-operative society was also not proved. As regards the other-paper, which was relied upon by the Additional Commissioner, namely, the admission register of members also the Trial Court found that it was not proved. If these documents are ignored on the ground that they were not duly proved there remains no documentary evidence relied upon by the Additional Commissioner in support of his findings.;