R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) In this petition directed against the order passed by Additional District Judge dismissing petitioners appeal under Section 13 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act the question is whether the sale deed executed after the prescribed date has been ignored on relevant considerations.
(2.) Admittedly all the three sale deeds were executed after 24-1-1971, the date prescribed under the Act. To bring his case within the proviso to sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act the petitioner apart from himself, examined the transferee on oath. He also filed a receipt showing purchase of tractor in August 1972. This was done obviously to establish the bona fide of the transfer.
(3.) The Additional District Judge refused to , extend the benefit of the proviso as the consideration was inadequate and there was lack of good faith. The finding on inadequacy of consideration is based without consideration of any evidence. He inferred from the failure of the petitioner to file exemplars that the) price was inadequate. Exemplars may be a piece of evidence to prove adequacy of consideration but they are not conclusive. Even in land acquisition cases they are taken only as a piece of evidence which has to be considered along with other evidence on record. The appellate Court on the mere non-filing of the exemplar drew an inference against the petitioner and did not consider die oral evidence for whatever worth it was. The finding cannot be sustained as it is based on considerations which cannot be considered to be relevant.;