As per Settlement Deed – Compromise entered into – duly attested by the counsel of opp. party – as per law ,the widow of only deceased son of original owner was the legal heir and entitled for the disputed land in the absence of will deed contrary to it , others are not entitled to any share – high court not interfered - Apex court dismissed the appeal =
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.=
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 was not allowed to lead
evidence regarding the deed compromise.=
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.
2014 ( Apr.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41383
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, V. GOPALA GOWDA
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 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 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 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
Posts
