Ramdeo (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Board Of Revenue, U.P. & Ors

Ramdeo (D) by LRs. & Ors. .....Petitioners

Versus

Board of Revenue, U.P. & Ors. .....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 5th November, 2003 passed in

Writ Petition No. 7435 of 1979 by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad, this Special Leave Petition has been filed by the heirs of the

Original Plaintiff, who had filed a suit for a declaration under Section

229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act to the effect

that he was an exclusive owner of land bearing Survey No. 22, situated

at Village Raipur, Pargana Karvi, District Banda.

2

2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the litigation have been

described as arrayed in the trial court.

3. The case of the plaintiff in the suit before the Assistant Collector,

Ist Class, Karvi, District Banda, was that his grand father Kali had

three sons, namely, Bal Govind, Ram Kumar and Ram Jiawan and the

plaintiff was the son of Ram Kumar.

4. The tenancy right in respect of the land in question was

in the name of Bal Govind as he was the eldest son of Kali.

Upon death of Bal Govind, who had no male issue, his right

had been inherited by his widow, Malhi. Ram Kumar, father

of the plaintiff and Ram Jiawan had also expired. The case of

the plaintiff was that Bal Govind was not having any male

issue and, therefore, Malhi, the widow of Bal Govind or

Media, the daughter of Bal Govind had no right in respect of

the land in question. He was aggrieved by a revenue entry

whereby names of other co-sharers in respect of the land in

question had been added as tenants.

3

5. The suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector for the

reason that the land in question stood in the name of Bal

Govind in the revenue record because he was the Karta of the

joint family. In the land in question, all the three brothers,

namely, Bal Govind, Ram Kumar and Ram Jiawan had

tenancy rights and, therefore, Ram Kumar was having only

1/3rd right in respect of the land in question. It was also

recorded by the Assistant Collector in his order that only at

the instance of the plaintiff entries were made in the revenue

record whereby right of other co-sharers had been recorded.

For the aforestated reasons the suit praying for a declaration

that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the suit property was

dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff

had filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The

appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed.

4

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed in appeal, the

defendants had approached the Board of Revenue by way of a

Revision Application. The Board had allowed the Revision

Application whereby the order passed in the appeal was set

aside and the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Karvi,

District Banda, had been restored.

8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of

Revenue, the heirs of the plaintiff had approached the High

Court by way of a writ petition and the High Court was

pleased to reject the writ petition as stated hereinabove.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-heirs of

the original plaintiff submitted before this Court, that as Bal

Govind was not having any male issue, female heirs of Bal

Govind could not have got any right in the land in question,

and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the High Court

cannot be sustained. According to him, there was no co-tenant

in respect of the land in question and the plaintiff being the

5

only person who was in possession of the land in question, the

suit filed by the plaintiff ought to have been decreed.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondents submitted that names of the legal heirs of Bal

Govind had been recorded in the revenue record only at the

instance of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was only having 1/3rd

right in respect of the land in question because his father had

only 1/3rd right in the property in question. In the

circumstances, the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed.

11. Upon hearing the learned counsel and looking to the

impugned orders, in our opinion, the view expressed by the

High Court confirming the order of the Trial Court is just and

legal.

12. Bal Govind was the Karta of the joint family as he was

the eldest son among the three sons of Kali. Bal Govind, Ram

Kumar and Ram Jiawan had 1/3rd right in the land in question

as tenants. In any case, Ram Kumar could not have been the

sole tenant as claimed by him because there were other co-

6

sharers as seen from the record. In the aforesaid

circumstances, we agree with the view expressed by the High

Court and by the Trial Court that the branch of Ram Kumar

can have 1/3rd share and Ram Deo cannot be declared as an

exclusive owner of the land in question.

13. We do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by

the High Court confirming the order of the trial court. Hence,

the Special Leave Petition is rejected with no order as to costs.

..................................................J.

(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

.................................................J.

(ANIL R. DAVE)

New Delhi

March 10, 2011