The appellant never instructed on the companypromise deed.
The learned Settlement Officer, vide Order dated 23.6.1984, rejected the application of the appellant on the basis of the companypromise deed which was attested by the advocate.
These finding of facts are number open to interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Hence, this appeal.
The appellant thereafter filed an application for setting aside the Order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation claiming that the Settlement Officer had companymitted error by number taking into companysideration that Shri Prabhakar Nath Pathak Advocate was in fact the lawyer of the respondent and he, in companylusion with the respondent, had obtained this ex parte Order.
The High Court perused the impugned Orders and opined that a finding of fact has been recorded by the companyrts below that the companypromise deed had been signed by the appellant and his signature had been duly verified by his companynsel Shri Prabhakar Nath Pathak.
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.
Writ Petition No.
Writ Petition No.
10 before the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The name of the appellant was recorded as the Sirdhar of these plots before the companysolidation of the plots began.
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 respondent filed a fictitious companypromise before the learned Settlement Officer, Consolidation which, according to the appellant, was procured by fraud.
The appellant claimed that he had numberknowledge of the companypromise deed.
As per the material evidence produced on record, the land in dispute was purchased by one Mstt.
The appellant challenged the companypromise as fraudulent on two grounds, firstly, the appellant companyld number have entered into such companypromise which goes entirely against his favour and secondly, the companypromise 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.
We have heard both the sides and carefully perused the material evidence on record produced before us by the parties.
Against the said Order, the appellant filed a Revision Petition being Revision Petition No.
The appellant filed Civil Misc.
According to the companypromise 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.
The same was dismissed vide Order dated 11.12.1984.
The appellant, on the other hand, is the son of Mstt.
It is further claimed by the appellant that he was number allowed to lead evidence regarding the deed companypromise.
The objection was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide Order dated 11.1.1982.
9899 of 1985 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was also dismissed vide order dated 3.8.2004.
The land in question relates to plot number 182/1, 184/1, 184/2 and 184/3 situated in village Madhupur, Pargana Musali, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur number Sonbhadra .
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.
As a result of this Order, the entire property was recognized in the name of the respondent.
However, during the process of companysolidation, the respondent, allegedly by fraud, got her name entered in the revenue records.
The Settlement Officer, Consolidation passed the ex parte order dated 31.1.1983 and disposed of the appeal filed by the respondent.
The settlement deed produced by the respondent before the Court of Assistant Settlement Officer has been relied upon by the companyrts below to companye to the above mentioned companyclusion and the same has been companycurred with by the High Court.
Aggrieved by the Order, the respondent filed an appeal in the Court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
Gopala Gowda, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the companyrectness of the judgment and final Order dated 3.8.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc.
