RAMDEO (D) BY LRS. Vs BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. .
Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,ANIL R. DAVE, , ,
Case number: SLP(C) No.-002784-002784 / 2004
Diary number: 375 / 2004
Advocates: Vs
P. NARASIMHAN
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 2784 OF 2004
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.
1
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.
2
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.
3
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
4
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-
5
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
6