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
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
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.
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5766 OF 2007
SHIV MURAT (D) BY LRS.
Vs.
SATYAWATI & ORS.
Citation: 2016 (3)ALLMR 494 SC
V.Gopala Gowda, J.
Dated:April 4, 2014
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
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
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
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
4Page 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
5Page 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
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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment