Allahabad High Court
Shiv Adhar Singh vs D.D.C. And Others on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162113
Court No. - 48
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2038 of 1976
Petitioner :- Shiv Adhar Singh
Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- ,A.K. Rai,R.N. Singh,V K Singh,Vishnu Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,M.K. Srivastava
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Vishnu Singh and Sri Narendra Shankar, both learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for contesting respondents.
2. This writ petition is pending since 1976 and finally disposed of today, after 47 years. The facts which are necessary for disposal of this case are that subject matter of dispute is Khata No.70B and Khata No.159 of village-Laxmangarh, Pargana Barah, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi.
3. It is not in dispute that Khata No.70B was recorded in the name of Behari and Khata No.195 was recorded in the name of father of Behari, Ganesh and others in the basic year.
4. The petitioners herein have filed objections claiming 1/2 share in Khata No.70B, claiming that sale-deed executed by Jagardeo in favour of Behari will convey only his interest and not the interest of Smt. Bachi w/o Sahdeo, who has executed a deed of surrender in favour of Jagardeo.
5. A suit was filed between the parties to obtain a declaration that deed of surrender dated 24.08.1950 and consequent sale-deed and gift-deed of the same date are null and void and it would not be binding on plaintiff reversionery interest.
6. The aforesaid suit was decided after framing issues and hearing the parties by order dated 24.11.1951. It was decreed that deed to surrender, dated 24.08.1950, executed by Smt. Bachi, in favour of the petitioner No.1 and the second sale-deed and gift-deed executed by Jagardeo of the same property shall be null and void and ineffective on the death of Smt. Bachi, and they will not be binding on the plaintiff reversionery interest.
7. During the consolidation proceedings, petitioners have filed objections under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.01.1973 rejected the objections and directed that existing entries in regard to Khata No.70B and Khata No.159 shall be continued.
8. The petitioners thereafter preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi under Section 11(1) of the Act. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.04.1975 allowed the appeal in part and it was directed that entries in regard to Khata No.70B shall not be disturbed, however, in regard to entries to Khata No.159 and their Gata No. 377/2 and 377/3, the entries in the name of Ganesh etc. shall be expunged and the name of petitioners shall be entered as co-bhumidhar.
9. Against the aforesaid order, petitioners as well as respondents filed their respective revision petitions. The revision petition filed by petitioners was rejected whereas the revision petition filed by respondents was allowed by impugned order dated 31.08.1976. The Revisional Authority while considering the revision petition filed by petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Dixit (dead) by his legal representative and another Vs. Bhirgunath and others, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1058, wherein Supreme Court has held that :-
"(13) On a careful review of the provisions of the Act, we are unable to hold that it was intended by the Legislature to enact by implication that the holding inherited by a female heir belonging to one of the classes of female heirs in Section 171 is not (sic) held as a life-estate."
10. Both learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners have submitted that since in the suit between the parties which was decreed in their favour and finding was returned that the interest Smt. Bachi will be remained during her life and since judgment and decree was never challenged, therefore, it will hold good against respondents, though fairly they have not disputed the position of law as held by Supreme Court in Ramji Dixit (dead) through LR (supra).
11. Learned counsel further submits that since the interest of Smt. Bachi does not continue after her death, therefore, deed of surrender and exchange-deed has no legal consequence.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents submits that effect of decree will not prevail over the position of law as held by Supreme Court in Ramji Dixit (dead) through LR (supra), a judgment which is 'in rem' and not 'in personam'.
14. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.
15. As referred it is not under dispute that suit that a civil suit between parties was decreed in favour of petitioners and it was held that the right of Smt. Bachi will remain only during her life, however, as held by Supreme Court in Ramji Dixit (dead) through LR (supra), the position of law which has not been disturbed since no contrary judgment has been placed on record that such right of a widow will not be a life estate.
16. The above referred position of law completely apply to the facts of present case and, therefore, the Revisional Authority has rightly applied the above law and right held that despite the decree, the right of Smt. Bachi will continue even after her death and, therefore, the respondents have right to execute deed of exchange/surrender.
17. The outcome of the above discussion is that counsel for petitioner is not able to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, therefore, this writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.8.2023
P. Pandey
