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