Smt. Jagawanti vs Harihar Nath
2023 Latest Caselaw 34745 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Jagawanti vs Harihar Nath on 12 December, 2023

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Reserved -: 06/12/2023
 
Delivered -: 12/12/2023
 
Neutral Citation No.-: 2023:AHC:234800
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1676 of 1977
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Jagawanti
 
Respondent :- Harihar Nath
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.N. Bhargava,Dharam Pal Singh,S. Niranjan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S..C,Ajay Kumar Mishra,D.N. Misra,Deo Narain Mishra,J.K. Pandey,L.K. Pandey,S.N. Misra,Satya Narain Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. This case is arising out of a proceedings under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

2. The petitioner has filed objections in respect of various plots in respect of Khata No. 31 situated in village Madanpur, Pargana Bhadohi, Tehsil Gyanpur, District Varanasi, which recorded in basic year khatauni in the name of petitioner and some of original respondents.

3. Consolidation Officer after hearing parties decided the dispute against petitioner by an order dated 19.07.1967 and objection filed by original respondents was allowed in part.

4. Petitioner and others have filed four separate appeals against aforesaid order. The appeal of petitioner was allowed in part and others' appeal were rejected by an order dated 15.03.1969.

5. The petitioner being still aggrieved filed revision petitions, however, both revision petitions were rejected by an order dated 27.11.1976.

6. Before adverting to rival submissions, relevant parts of judgments passed by Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities are mentioned below -:

Appellate Order dated 15.03.1969

"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the lower court files.

First I take up the appeal of Smt. Jagwanti. The learned counsel for appellant argued that Jagnarain and others filed a civil suit no. 660 of 1946 for partition against Jagwanti and others claiming ½ share in that suit; Hariharnath was recorded as respondent no.7, Gopinath no. 8 Kedar respondent no. 10, Ramlakhan respondent no.3, that suit was decreed ex-parte against them on 5.3.47 and 7.1.48 and Jagnarain and others transferred their ½ share in favour of Jagwanti on 16.1.65 through sale deed so Jagwanti became owner of the entire property, that suit was decreed on 8.2.61 and Amin partitioned plot on spot, that after the decree an application was given on 23.1.65 that the suit should be dismissed, that this ex-parte will operate as res-judicata and Hariharnath and others cannot claim these plots in the suit. Learned counsel for appellant referred 1950 Allahabad Pg. 488m 1947 Allahabad pg 147 and 1963 RD pg. 226. The certified copies of the order sheet dated 5.3.47 and 7.1.48 shows that the suit was decided ex-parte against the case of Jagnarayan and others regarding partition. Preliminary order was passed by Munsif and on basis of this order, the Amin went in the village on 8.2.61 for partitioning the plot on the spot. The appeal was filed before the Civil Judge, Gyanpur, which was decided on 23.1.65 on basis of compromise and the case filed by Jagnarayan and others in 1946 was dismissed on 23.1.65 and that suit was not decreed so it will not operate as resjudicata. The ruling cited by learned counsel for appellant shows that in all these cases the suit was decreed and was not dismissed. Thus, the rulings are not applicable in this case. I do not agree with learned counsel for appellant shows that in all these cases the suit was decreed and was not dismissed. Thus, these rulings are not applicable in this case. I do not agree with learned counsel for appellant (Smt. Jagwanti) that the order passed in previous suit will operate resjudicata.

As regards plot nos. 79/2 area 1 bigha 12 biswas, the learned C.O. held Ram Kedar and Ram Lakhan as bhumidhar of plot nos. 79/2 area 1 bigha only. Ram Kedar and others filed for the rest area of this plot. Ram Lakhan and others claimed this plot on basis of sale deed executed by Smt. Jagwanti in favour of father of appellant Ram Lakhan in 1933. The learned counsel for Smt. Jagwanti contended that grounds of appeal are not signed by Ram Kedar, thus, the appeal is incompetent. The perusal of appeal shows that Ram Kedar and Ram Lakhan are entered as appellants and vakalatnama on file also bears the name of Ram Kedar and Ram Lakhan. The counsel has accepted this vakalatnama. The mere omission of signature on vakalatnama does not mean that he has got engaged the counsel when he does not deny. Thus, the appeal cannot be rejected on this technical ground.

As regards plot no 79, Smt. Jagwanti executed sale of this plot in favour of Ram Lakhan along with other plots. The document on the file shows that a civil suit was filed for cancellation of this sale deed which was cancelled by the civil court the in the year 1941. And Dakhalnama on the file shows that Smt. Pargasi got the possession over this plot. According to the admission of Sarju Pd., Jagwanti again got this entire land from Smt. Pargasi in the year 1945. Smt. Jagwanti executed registered sale deed for plot no. 79 area 1 bigha in favour of Ram Lakhan as is evident from sale deed on file. This sale deed was executed by Smt. Jagwanti in favour of Ram Kedar and others in 1945 and about 24 years have passed Ram Kedar and others have taken no steps for getting their names entered over this plot on the basis of this sale deed. There is no evidence on the file showing that the appellant Ram Kedar and others came in possession over this plot on basis of this sale deed. The names of appellant Ram Kedar and others did not come in revenue papers on basis of this sale deed. From this, I come to this conclusion that this deed has not been acted upon and it is a mere paper transaction, the rights of appellant Ram Kedar and others, over this plot, if any, have extinguished being out of possession for the last so many years. The learned lower court was not right in holding them as bhumidhar of 1 bigha area of this plot.

As regards the appeal of Parasnath and others, the claimed plot nos. 678 and 677 on basis of mortgaged deed. The old plot no. 278/1 corresponds to new plot no. 678 and 278/2 corresponds to new plot no. 677. In the extract of khatauni for 1301-F Madu S/o Bhagi is recorded over this plot no. 278. In 1320-F on plot no. 678, name of Ram Achraj S/o Hanuman is entered as mortgagee and on plot no. 677 Bindeshwari S/o Bhagi is recorded as mortgagee both these documents prove that the appellant Parasnath and others were mortgagee of the disputed land since 130-F. In the extract of khatauni for 1359-F, the plot no. 677 and 678 are recorded in the names of Smt. Jagwanti and others. The plot no. 677 is shown in the Bakasht of Parasnath and plot no. 678 has been shown in the Bakasht of Bindeshwari. All these documents prove that the appellants' ancestors were in possession over the disputed land since before 1301-F. The period of their possession for 60 years have expired. So they had acquired right over the disputed land. On the basis of this, their names were entered as Bakasht holding in 1359-F. The same entry exists in the extract of khatauni for 1360-F and after 1359-F, their names omitted from the disputed land and there is no explanation from any side of Smt. Jagwanti that how their names disappeared. Since there is no explanation, I am of this opinion that this unauthorized omission will create no rights to Smt. Jagwanti. Learned counsel for Smt. Jagwanti argued that there is no original mortgage deed on the file. Since mortgage deed has been acted upon and there is entry in revenue papers since 1361-F to 1360-F, one settlement entry and there is no question of producing the original mortgage deed. The entry in revenue papers are sufficient to prove that there is mortgage. Learned counsel for appellant further argued that the disputed land is entered in the name of Smt. Jagwanti since 1363-F to 1370-F. Thus, the rights of Parasnath and others have extinguished. As observed above, the entries in the name of Smt. Jagwanti is wrong thus this wrong entry would create no rights to Smt. Jagwanti. Thus, I hold that Parasnath and others are bhumidhar of these plots.

As regards, the appeal of Smt. Jagwanti against Gaurishankar about plot no. 682 Bhan Pandey executed a sale deed of this plot along with other plots in favour of Bibhuti grandfather of Gaurishankar and Umashankar. In the extract of Khatauni for 1320-F, the name of Bibhuti is entered on plot no. 682 alongwith other plots and in the basic year khatauni, the name of Gauri Shankar son of Bibhuti is entered this it is quite clear that the plot is of Gaurishankar and Umashankar on the basis of sale taken by their ancestor. There is no evidence on the file that it was ever surrendered. Thus I told Gaurishankar is bhumidhar of this plot.

As regards the appeal of Smt. Jagwanti about plot no. 149 and 150 against Ganga Pd. And others, Ganga Pd. And others claimed bhumidhari rights over these plots on basis of sale deed dated 15.4.66 executed by Smt. Jagwanti in their favour. The perusal of the sale deed shows that it was executed on 15.4.65 by Smt. Jagwanti in favour of Ganga Pd. And others. This deed was executed without permission of SOC as laid down under Section 5B(c)(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. The learned counsel for Ganga Pd. And others argued that there was general permission from SOC regarding transfer but the general permission is not sufficient. There should be specific permission from SOC regarding transfer. Since the transfer has been made without prior permission of SOC thus this deed is in contravention of Section 5B(c)2 of UPCH Act. Thus no rights would pass on the vendees on the basis of this sale deed. The learned lower Court was not right in mutating the land in the name of Ganga Pd and others.

As regards, the appeal of Smt. Jagwanti about plot no. 126, 141, 142 and 143 against Hariharnath and others. In the extract of khatauni for 1352-F, the disputed plots are entered in the name of Hariharnath and Gopinath as Bakasht holder. This document proves that the disputed land is in their possession. The original mortgage deed on the file shows that the disputed plots were mortgaged with Kalika which was acted upon in favour of Kalika Prasad. The extract of khatauni for 1320-F shows that Kalika is recorded mortgagee over plot nos. 142 and 143. This shows that the disputed land. In the extract of khatauni for 1301-F, the disputed plots are entered in the Bakasht of Bhan and Bhan mortgaged these plots to Kalika. The document on the file shows that ancestors of Hariharnath and others were in possession over the disputed land since before the 1320-F on the basis of mortgage deed. The period of sixty years had expired and Hariharnath and others were declared as bhumidhar of these plots. And on the basis of this, their names came over the disputed land since before Zamindari Abolition. Thus I hold that they are bhumidhar of the plots.

As regards, the appeal of Taleshwarnath this has been filed on 28.10.67 against order dated 19.8.77. This appeal is time barred. There is no affidavit from the side of the appellant for condoning the delay. Thus, I am not inclined to condone the delay in this appeal."

Revisional Order dated 27.11.1976

"विवाद गाटा संख्या- 126,141,142,143,682,677,678 के वारे में है। जहां तक गाटा संख्या 126,141,142,143 का प्रश्न है 1352 फ० में यह गाटो हरिहर नाथ गोपी नाथ के नाम वतौर वकाश्त अंकित है। इस वकास्त अंकन से यह सिद्ध है कि इस पर वे लोग काविज थे। पत्रावली पर मूल रेहन नामा उपलब्ध है इसके अवलोकन से विदित है कि विवादित गाटा का रेहननामा कालिका प्रसाद आदि के हक में हुआ था। 1320 मु० के खाते की नकल से स्पष्ट है कि कालिका गाटा संख्या 143/142 पर वतौर मुर्तहिन अंकित है। 1301 फ० में भी विवादित गाटा भाग के वकास्त में अंकित है और उन्होंने इस गाटे को कालिका के पक्ष मे रेहन किया। पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अन्य कागजी साक्ष्य से भी यह सावित है कि हरिहर नाथ एवं अन्य के पूर्वज 1320 फ० से रेहन के आधार पर विवादित गाटे पर काविज दखील थे। 60 वर्ष की अवधि पूरी हो चुकी है और हरिहरनाथ आदि इन गाटों के भूमिधर हो चुके है। यही कारण था कि जमीदारी विनाश के पूर्व से ही वे लोग वतौर भूमिधर अंकित है। उनका आधार वर्ष का अंकन सही है जैसा कि विद्वान अधीनस्थ न्यायालय ने माना है।

जहां तक गाटा संख्या 682 का प्रश्न है भानु पान्डे ने एक वैनामा अन्य गाटों के साथ विभूति जो गौरीशंकर उमाशंकर के वावा थे के हक में तहरीर किया। 1320 फ० में यह गाटों के साथ विभूती के नाम अंकित है। और आधार वर्ष में गौरीशंकर पुत्र विभूती का नाम अंकित है। इससे यह सिद्ध है कि गौरीशंकर उमाशंकर का नाम वैनामे के आधार पर जो पूर्व ने हासिल किया था। अंकित चला आ रहा है। पत्रावली पर इस वात का कोई प्रमाण उपलब्ध नही है कि गाटे को कभी सलेन्डर किया गया। ऐसी स्थिति में यह माना जावेगा कि गौरीशंकर आदि विवादित भूमि के भूमिधर सही रूप में अंकित है जहां तक गाटा संख्या 677, 678 का प्रश्न है निगरानी कर्त्ता की ओर से यह वहस की गई कि इन दोनों गाटा का फकरेहन हो चुका है। उन्होंने यह भी कहा कि रेहन का अंकन लगातार कनसिस्टेन्ट नही है। विपक्षी गण का आधार यह है कि 60 साल अधिक का रेहन होने के कारण वे जमीदारी विनाश के पूर्व विवादित गाटे के भूमिधर हो चुके है। विद्वान चकवन्दी अधिकारी के निर्णय में एक कुर्सी नामा का उल्लेख है जिसके अनुसार भागी के दो पुत्र मघ्घू और विन्देश्वरी थे विन्देश्वरी के शिवकरन थे और शिवकरन के लालता और देवता प्रसाद है। मघ्घू के चार लड़के मातावदल हनुमान मातासरन व शिवमूरत थे। माता वदल के शिवमूरत लावल्द मरे। हनुमान के लड़के रामआधार और रामअचरज और रामअचरज के काशी है। मातासरन के लड़के पारसनाथ है। अव देखना है कि क्या विपक्षी गण विवादित गाटे के रेहन के आधार पर जमीन्दारी विनाश के पूर्व भूमिधर हो चुके थे या नहीं। नकल वन्दोवस्त 1281 फ० में विवादित गाटे को सावितो नम्बर 278/2, 278/1है। गाटा संख्या 278/2का हाल नम्बर 677 व गाटा संख्या 278/1 का हाल नम्बर 678 है। 1301 फ० में गाटा संख्या 278/ 0-10-15 पर मघू पुत्र भागी के नाम अंकित है। 1320 फ० में गाटा संख्या 278/ 1/0-4-0 हाल नम्बर 678 0-4-0 रामअचरज पुत्र हनुमान के नाम वतौर मुर्तहिन अंकित है। गाटा सं० 278 /2/0-4-4/ हाल नम्बर 677 0-4-4 विन्देसरी पुत्र भागी के नाम वतौर मुर्तहिन अंकित है। 1359 फ० की खतौनी में गाटा संख्या 678 पर जगवन्ती का नाम असल कास्तकार के खाने में अंकित है एवं शिवकरन पुत्र विन्देसरी के नाम वकास्त अंकित है। और गाटा संख्या 677 वकास्त पारसनाथ के नाम अंकित है। 1360 फ० में भी 1359 फ० का अंकन है। मेरे समक्ष विपक्षीगण की ओर से यह बहस की गयी कि 1360 फ० तक 60 साल का कव्जा उनका है। और 1301और 1320 फ० में चूंकि उनका नाम वतौर मुर्तहिन अंकित है और वाद का अंकन व कास्त और कब्जा है और किसी पक्ष का अनाधिकार कव्जा का अभिवचन नही है ऐसी स्थिति में वे भूमिधर माने जायेगे परन्तु मै उनके इस तर्क से सहमत नहीं हूं क्योंकि उन्होने जव रेहन का आधार लिया है तो उन्हें रेहननामा की मूल प्रतिलिपि या सत्यापित प्रतिलिपि दाखिल करना चाहिये था जो नही दाखिल किया है। इस पर निगरानी कर्त्ता के विद्वान अधिवक्ता ने अधिक बल दिया परन्तु जव 1360 फ० तक विपक्षी गण का नाम वतौर मुर्तहिन स्व वकास्त के रूप में 1301 फ० से चला आ रहा है तो ऐसी स्थिति में रेहननामा का दाखिलन करना कोई अधिक महत्व नही रखता क्योंकि 1301 और 1320 मे मुर्तहिन का अंकित यह सिद्ध करता है कि रेहन नामा का क्रियान्वयन हुआ। लेखपाल ने 1360 फ० के वाद अचानक विपक्षीगण का अनाधिकृत रूप से नाम खारिज किया। राजस्व अभिलेखों का अंकन यह सिद्ध करता है कि रेहन हुआ था। श्रीमती जगवन्ती का नाम 1363 से 69 फ० तक होने से उन्हें कोई अधिकार नही प्राप्त होता क्योंकि जगवन्ती का नाम किस आधार पर अंकित हुआ साक्ष्य से यह सिद्ध नही किया गया। ऐसी स्थिति में विपक्षीगण का नाम सही तौर से विद्वान सहायक वन्दोवस्त अधिकारी (च) ने भूमिधरी में दर्ज किया है। मैं उनकी राय से पूर्णतया सहमत हूं। उपरोक्त विवेचना के आधार पर दोनों निगरानिया बलहीन है। फलस्वरूप दोनों निगरानियां निरस्त की जाती है। यही आदेश समान रूप से निगरानी संख्या 55/116/ 664/8053 पर भी लागू होगा।"

7. Sri Dharam Pal Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M.S. Pipersenia, learned Advocate for petitioner has limited his argument so far as appeal of petitioner is concerned in regard to issue whether ex-parte order passed in civil proceedings would act as a res-judicata despite at appellate stage, suit was dismissed on a basis of compromise.

8. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that Civil Suit No. 660 of 1946 filed by one Jagnarayan against petitioner and respondents was decreed ex-parte vide orders dated 05.03.1947 and 04.01.1947 and on basis of said decree, Amin has proceeded for partition on 08.02.1961. Later on, Jagnarayan and others transferred their half share in favour of petitioner on 16.01.1965. Meanwhile, an appeal was filed against ex-parte order wherein by an order dated 23.01.1965 on basis of a compromise, the suit was dismissed.

9. On the basis of above facts, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that though the ex-parte decree was already executed and during appeal, the suit was dismissed on basis of compromise, therefore, ex-parte decree would act as res-judicata.

10. Per contra, Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri L.K. Pandey, learned Advocate for respondents has supported the findings returned by Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority that in aforesaid circumstances, since the suit was dismissed on basis of compromise during appeal, therefore, ex-parte decree would not act as a res-judicata.

11. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

12. The issue before this Court is to consider the effect of an ex-parte decree in the circumstances wherein during appeal, suit was dismissed on basis of compromise.

13. Argument of learned counsel for petitioner was that since the decree was already executed and that Amin has conducted partition, therefore, subsequently, even when during appeal, the suit was dismissed on basis of compromise. It will not effect the execution of decree and it will act as a res-judicata.

14. As referred above, against the ex-parte decree, the appeal was preferred wherein parties entered into a compromise and suit was dismissed. Consequence of it would be that no suit was filed ever as well as that the appeal is a continuation of the proceedings of the original Court, therefore, since suit was dismissed on basis of compromise. Execution of ex-parte decree, if any, would also become non-est, therefore, ex-parte decree would not act as a res-judicata. (see M/s Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta and another, (2022) 7 SCC 678)

15. In this regard, the findings returned by Authorities would be relevant that the petitioner was not able to prove basis of revenue entries in her favour as well as that there is no reason to take a different view from the Authorities in regard to above issue.

16. In view of above observations, I do not find any irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, petition, being sans merit, is dismissed.

Order Date :- December 12, 2023

Nirmal Sinha

[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]