R.S. Pathak, J. - (1.) A suit was filed by Baldeo and others, sons of Mathuri, Under Sections 229 -B and 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act for a declaration that they were sirdars of the land in dispute and for the ejectment of the Petitioners from the land. The suit was contested by the Petitioners. The Judicial Officer dismissed the suit. An appeal by the Plaintiffs was allowed by the Addl. Commr. Thereafter the Petitioners appealed to the Board of Revenue. One of the Judicial Members made an order allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit while the other Judicial Member made an order dismissing the appeal. There was thus want of concurrence between the two Judicial Members; therefore the appeal stood dismissed. The Petitioners now pray for certiorari against the order of the Board of Revenue.
(2.) THE case of the Plaintiffs in the suit was that their father Mathuri was Adhivasi of the land, that upon his death they became Adhivasis and thereafter sirdars. They alleged that a surrender deed had been executed by their mother in favour of the Defendants but the document was executed under undue influence and was vitiated by fraud also. The Addl. Commr. accepted the case of the Plaintiffs and held that the surrender effected by the mother was invalid for want of legal necessity. The case of the Defendants that a decree for arrears of rent in the sum of Rs. 73/10/ - stood against the Plaintiffs and was the reason for execution of the deed was not relied upon for two reasons. One reason was that the price of the land was about Rs. 1,000/ - and the surrender for payment of Rs. 73/10/ - was not a prudent action on the part of the mother as guardian of the Plaintiffs, who were minors. The other reason was that the decree for arrears could not be executed by the ejectment of the Plaintiffs and therefore, there was no pressure on the estate to justify the surrender. The Addl. Commr. further found that the entries showing the possession of the Defendants for 1363F and 1369F were not made in accordance with paragraphs A -80 and A -81 of the Land Records Manual and no reliance could be placed on those unauthorised entries, that at best the Defendants could be considered as recorded in 1365 F and be treated as in possession from that year. Accordingly, the suit, which was filed on March 9, 1955 was held by the Addl. Commr. to be within limitation. Shri R.R. Mathur, Judicial Member of the Board of Revenue, came to the finding that the mere circumstance that land of the value of Rs. 1,000/ - was surrendered in order to pay up a sum of Rs. 73/10/ - could not prove that the act of the mother was imprudent. He observed that inadequate consideration should not be confused with want of legal necessity. Further, he held that there was pressure on the Plaintiffs minors by reason of the decree for arrears of rent because of the fact that the Plaintiffs were liable to be ejected in execution of the decree and he referred to Section 234(a) of the UP ZA and LR Act. Accordingly, he held that the surrender deed was valid. He also found that there was no reason to doubt the entries of 1363 F and 1364 F and therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. Shri S.N. Mitra, the other Judicial Member of the Board, observed that the question whether the Defendants were in possession from 1363 F or 1365 F was a question of fact and pointed out that the Addl. Commr. had given cogent reasons for holding that the Defendants were in possession from 1365 F. Accordingly, he held that the suit was filed within time. As regards the validity of the surrender deed he came to the finding that the mother of the Plaintiffs was an illiterate woman, that there was no adequate reason why she should have executed a surrender deed in respect of valuable land for a paltry sum of Rs. 73/10/ - and that she had been imposed upon by the Defendants and the surrender deed was not in order.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and in my opinion no case has been made out for grant of relief upon this petition. As regards the question as to whether there was a pressing danger to the Plaintiffs by reason of the decree for arrears of rent, it appears that the mother's execution of the surrender deed would not be covered by Section 234(a) of the UP ZA and LR Act inasmuch as, in my opinion, that provision applies to rent due from an Adhivasi as Adhivasi. Admittedly the rent due here was in respect of a period before the minors or their father became Adhivasi. It related to a period before the date of vesting. It seems that the proviso to Section 7 of the UP ZA and LR Act protected the Plaintiffs from ejectment. In any event the matter is not free from doubt and it cannot be said that there is a patent error of law on the face of the record. Further the consideration for which the deed of surrender was executed was so out of proportion to the value of the land that the execution of the deed could well be described as an imprudent act on the part of the mother as guardian of the minors. In taking that view the Addl. Commr. and Mr. S.N. Mitra, Judicial Member of the Board, could not be said to have committed a manifest error of law. As regards the reliability of the entries in the revenue records for the years 1363 F and 1364 F, they were plainly found to be without authority and in my opinion no presumption in favour of their correctness can be drawn, if ex facie it appears that they were not made in accordance with law. The finding to the contrary of Shri R.R. Mathur, Judicial Member of the Board, is manifestly illegal.;