Bhagwati Din Singh father of Appellant was impleaded as Defendant No.3 in suit number98, as his father, Bhagwan Din Singh had purchased the right of redemption in respect of the Kurthuwa lands.
On the other hand, the second decision, relating to Ghuskhuri and Manapur villages, in suit number.
Gajadhar died leaving behind him his widow Sirtaji, who through registered sale deed dated 8.6.1885 sold her right of redemption in regard to those lands to her relative Mata Badal.
Commissioner, Varanasi on 5.9.1966 in Appeal number231/22 and Appeal number232/23 who held that the sale deed dated 8.6.1885 executed by Smt.
Sirtaji was number for legal necessity was the subject matter of appeals before the Addl.
The four suits were decreed by Sri Ishwar Sahai, SDC Machhali Shahar, Jounpur, by a companymon judgment dated 20.3.1944.
2.1 One Gajadhar owned several lands situate in the villages of Kurthuwa, Meerapur Siroman, Manapur and Ghuskhuri, as fixed rate tenant, including the suit lands.
Bhagwan Din Singh died leaving him surviving his son Bhagwati Din Singh father of appellant respondent number 3 in the writ petition from which this appeal arises .
A revision petition was filed by the writ petitioners against the judgment before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who dismissed the same affirming the findings of the Settlement Officer by order dated 28.2.1978.
He held that the sale deed dated 8.6.1885 executed by Smt.
Sheorani Muneshar Bindesari Balkaran Ganga Prasad Bhagwati Deen P3 P1 Chandrabali Rajnarain D2 D1 2.5.
Suits 97, 98, 99 and 100 respectively related to the lands in the villages of Meerapur Siroman, Kurthuwa, Ghuskhuri and Manapur.
99 and 100 .
After the death of Sheorani, the nephews of Mata Badal, namely Muneshwar, Bindeshwari and Bal Karan, sold the right of redemption in respect of the suit properties in Kurthuwa in favour of Bhagwan Din Singh grandfather of appellant under registered sale deed dated 19.6.1911.
On her death, Ganga Prasad and Bhagwati Din ancestors of Respondents 1 to 6 herein filed four suits 97 to 100 for partition before the SDC, Machhli Shahar, Jaunpur, claiming that Gajadhar died issueless, that his wife Sirtaji had inherited only a life interest in the lands of her husband Gajadhar in the four villages, and that on her death, the lands of Gajadhar devolved on the near relatives of Gajadhar, namely plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Defendants 1 and 2 in the four suits, who were reversioners in regard to estate of Gajadhar.
He, therefore, dismissed the two suits Suit Nos.
Bhagwati Din Singh challenged the judgment in Suit No.98.
The following genealogical tree accepted in the earlier proceedings, traces Gajadhars relationship with the plaintiffs Ganga Prasad and Bhagwati Din Singh and defendants 1 and 2 Raj Narain and Chandra Bali , in the four suits as also with Mata Badal Sheo Upadhyay Meharban Palai Baijnath Jagannath Jaipal Sarjoo Prasad Deep Narain Kanhai Mata Badal Smt.
The factual position needs to be numbered in brief as essentially the pivotal question relates to the applicability of the principle of res judicata.
After dismissal of the appeal on 2.1.1945, on an application by the plaintiffs in Suit No.98, a final decree was passed on 3.4.1945 and possession was taken by plaintiffs in terms of the decree.
99 and 1000 travelled up to Board of Revenue and were remanded to the first appellate companyrt.
Sirtaji who executed the sale deed on 8.6.1885 in favour of Mata Badal died in the year 1940.
The first appellate companyrt Additional Commissioner, Varanasi dismissed the appeal Appeal No.4/327 filed by Bhagwati Din Singh on 2.1.1945 on the ground of delay.
The first in regard to Kurthuwa village lands in Suit No.98 purchased by Bhagwan Din Singh where it was held that the sale by Sirtaji in favour of Mata Badal on 8.6.1885 was number for legal necessity, that Mata Badal, a relative of her late husband by taking undue advantage of her young age had obtained the said sale deed from Sirtaji, and therefore, on her death, the reversioners of her husbands estate namely plaintiffs 1 2 Bhagwan Din Singh and Ganga Prasad and defendants 1 2 Raj Narain and Chandar Bata were entitled to the lands.
Sirtaji in favour of Mata Badal was for legal necessity, that Mata Badal got valid title, and that the sale deeds executed by Sheorani and others as legal heirs of Mata Badal were valid.
That decision was upheld by the Board of Revenue on 26.12.1967 and judgment which ended in dismissal of suit Nos.
The said two appeals arising out of suit number.99 and 100 were heard by Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division.
Consequently, sales by persons claiming through Mata Badal did number have any title after the death of Sirtaji in the year 1940.
The resultant position was that there was two diverse decisions in regard to the same sale deed dated 8.6.1885.
It would appear that after the purchase of equity of redemption, the said Bhagwan Din Singh cleared mortgage and was in possession of the suit lands.
99 and 100, it was held that the sale by Sirtaji under deed dated 8.6.1885 in favour of Mata Badal was for legal necessity and therefore, Mata Badal got valid title and companysequently, the sale deeds executed by persons claiming through Mata Badal were valid, and the suits filed by persons claiming to be reversioners in respect of the estate of Gajadhar did number have any right, title or interests in the lands sold by Sirtaji.
He held that the sale by Sirtaji under deed dated 8.6.1885 was number for legal necessity.
No further appeal was filed and the decision in Suit No.98 attained finality insofar as Kurthuwa lands claimed by Bhagwati Din Singh.
When matters stood thus, in the companysolidation proceedings, the Bhagwati Din Singh son of Bhagwan Din Singh and father of appellant filed an objection under section 9 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 in short Act companytending that the finding recorded by the companyrt in Suit Nos.97 to 100 under section 49 of the UP Tenancy Act, 1939 in short Tenancy Act that the sale deed dated 8.6.1885 by Smt.
On the death of Mata Badal, his wife Sheorani, sold the right of redemption in regard to some of the lands to third parties.
Two other appeals filed by the purchasers of lands at Ghuskhuri and Manapur villages, against the companymon judgment dated 20.3.1944 in Suit Nos.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Bhagwati Din Singh filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who allowed the appeal and held that though the writ petitioners had taken possession on the basis of decree dated 21.6.1945 arising out of Suit No.98, but appeals were filed relating to arising out of Suit Nos.99 and 100 against the judgment dated 20.3.1944 and in those appeals the Additional Commissioner had decided against the writ petitioners on 5.9.1966 and the judgment passed by the trial Court on 20.3.1944 against Bhagwati Din Singh in suit No.
The fixed rate tenancy of the lands in those villages was mortgaged by Gajadhar.
99 and 100 also attained finality.
5689 OF 2000 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents.
The writ petitioners had questioned order dated 24.2.1973 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Jaunpur and the order dated 28.2.1978 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation Jaunpur who were the respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition.
