Page 1

NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5766  OF 2007

SHIV MURAT (D) BY LRS.                    ………APPELLANTS Vs.  

SATYAWATI & ORS.                   ……… RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V.Gopala Gowda, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning  

the correctness of the judgment and final Order dated  

3.8.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at  1

Page 2

Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9989 of  

1985 urging various facts and legal contentions in  

justification of his claim.

 2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to  

appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find  

out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief  

as prayed in this appeal.

The land in question relates to plot no. 182/1,  

184/1, 184/2 and 184/3 situated in village Madhupur,  

Pargana Musali, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur (now  

Sonbhadra). The name of the appellant was recorded as  

the Sirdhar of these plots before the consolidation  

of the plots began. However, during the process of  

consolidation,  the  respondent,  allegedly  by  fraud,  

got her name entered in the revenue records.

 3. The appellant filed an objection under Section 12  

of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act against the  

entry of the name of the respondent in the revenue  

2

Page 3

records.  The  objection  was  allowed  by  the  

Consolidation Officer vide Order dated 11.1.1982.

 4. Aggrieved by the Order, the respondent filed an  

appeal  in  the  Court  of  Settlement  Officer,  

Consolidation.  The  respondent  filed  a  fictitious  

compromise  before  the  learned  Settlement  Officer,  

Consolidation which, according to the appellant, was  

procured by fraud. According to the compromise filed  

by  the  respondent,  the  entire  property  in  dispute  

becomes  the  bhumidari  of  the  respondent  and  the  

respondent  becomes  the  sole  beneficiary  of  the  

property.

 5.  The  appellant  challenged  the  compromise  as  

fraudulent  on  two  grounds,  firstly,  the  appellant  

could  not  have  entered  into  such  compromise  which  

goes entirely against his favour and secondly, the  

compromise deed filed before the Settlement Officer,  

Consolidation purports to bear the signature of the  

appellant which was attested by one Shri Prabhakar  

3

Page 4

Nath Advocate. However, Shri Prabhakar Nath Advocate  

was the lawyer of the respondent in appeal before the  

Settlement  Officer,  Consolidation.  The  appellant  

never  instructed  on  the  compromise  deed.  The  

appellant claimed that he had no knowledge of the  

compromise  deed.  The  Settlement  Officer,  

Consolidation  passed  the  ex-parte  order  dated  

31.1.1983 and disposed of the appeal filed by the  

respondent. As a result of this Order, the entire  

property  was  recognized  in  the  name  of  the  

respondent.

 6. The appellant thereafter filed an application for  

setting aside the Order of the Settlement Officer,  

Consolidation  claiming  that  the  Settlement  Officer  

had committed error by not taking into consideration  

that Shri Prabhakar Nath Pathak Advocate was in fact  

the lawyer of the respondent and he, in collusion  

with  the  respondent,  had  obtained  this  ex-parte  

Order. It is further claimed by the appellant that he  

4

Page 5

was not allowed to lead evidence regarding the deed  

compromise.

 7. The learned Settlement Officer, vide Order dated  

23.6.1984, rejected the application of the appellant  

on  the  basis  of  the  compromise  deed  which  was  

attested by the advocate.

 8.  Against  the  said  Order,  the  appellant  filed  a  

Revision  Petition  being  Revision  Petition  No.  10  

before the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation.  

The same was dismissed vide Order dated 11.12.1984.

 9. The appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  

9899  of  1985  in  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  

Allahabad which was also dismissed vide order dated  

3.8.2004.

 10. The High Court opined that the learned Settlement  

Officer had already dismissed the application on the  

basis  of  the  settlement  entered  into  between  the  

parties and verified by Advocate Shri Prabhakar Nath  

5

Page 6

who had been the lawyer of the appellant. The High  

Court perused the impugned Orders and opined that a  

finding of fact has been recorded by the courts below  

that  the  compromise  deed  had  been  signed  by  the  

appellant and his signature had been duly verified by  

his counsel Shri Prabhakar Nath Pathak. These finding  

of facts are not open to interference by the High  

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence,  

this appeal.

11.  We  have  heard  both  the  sides  and  carefully  

perused  the  material  evidence  on  record  produced  

before  us  by  the  parties.  The  settlement  deed  

produced  by  the  respondent  before  the  Court  of  

Assistant Settlement Officer has been relied upon by  

the  courts  below  to  come  to  the  above  mentioned  

conclusion and the same has been concurred with by  

the High Court. As per the material evidence produced  

on record, the land in dispute was purchased by one  

Mstt. Tapesara, since deceased, who was the mother in  

law of the respondent. Further, the settlement deed  

6

Page 7

goes on to show that the respondent is the widow of  

the  only  son  of  Shri  Mahadeo  and  his  wife  Mstt  

Tapesara who purchased the land. The appellant, on  

the  other  hand,  is  the  son  of  Mstt.  Tapesara’s  

sister, Mstt. Jageshara who does not become the legal  

heir on the death of the owner. Therefore, on the  

death of the only son of the owner of the land, her  

daughter  in  law  becomes  the  legal  heir  of  the  

property  in  absence  of  any  will  to  prove  the  

contrary. Moreover, the settlement deed states that  

the two parties share amicable relations and wish to  

live peacefully. Therefore, they have, on their free  

will, entered into a compromise on the issue since  

the litigation was not in the best interest of either  

of  the  parties.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  any  

material evidence on record, we are of the opinion  

that the appellant has failed to prove his right on  

the land in dispute. We are not inclined to interfere  

with  the  concurrent  findings  of  the  original  and  

appellate authority which establish that a compromise  

7

Page 8

had been entered into between the parties which was  

duly verified by Advocate Shri Pathak. Hence, we hold  

that the High Court was correct in not interfering  

with  the  findings  of  the  original  and  appellate  

authorities, particularly, when both the authorities  

have concurrently relied upon the compromise deed.  

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders  

dated 27.9.2004 and 7.12.2007 shall stand vacated.

        ………………………………………………………………………J.

           [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]                                                        

  ………………………………………………………………………J.              [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi,  April 4, 2014  

8