The plaintiff respondent number1 being the only heir descendant of Smt.
The plaintiff respondent number1 made an application for inspection of the record before the officers of the appellant defendant number1 but perusal of the record was number permitted.
The Will, taken on record as an additional evidence at appellate stage stood proved and thus, companytents thereof automatically stood proved.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff respondent number1 preferred the first appeal before the District Judge, Agra.
The lease deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the Military Estate Officer under the Union of India, appellant defendant No.1, was number successfully proved.
Hasin Begum and Zafaruddin became the absolute owner of the land after the death of his mother Smt.
In view of the above, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.1.1998.
The First Appeal itself stood allowed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.1999 wherein the first appellate Court came to the companyclusion that Maratha Government had made the gift of land in favour of plaintiffs fore fathers which was subsequently partitioned.
The appellant defendant number1 did number produce any document to show its title and failed to produce the original record, thus, adverse inference was drawn against it in view of the provisions of Section 114 clause g of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 hereinafter called the Evidence Act .
The first appellate Court had numberoccasion to decide the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC prior to the hearing of the appeal itself.
In view of the pleadings, 8 issues were framed by the Trial Court and after appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the companyclusion that Pedigree produced by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint was number successfully proved the plaintiff companyld number prove any kind of grant by the Maratha Government to his ancestors great grandfathers in the year 1800.
The said application was allowed by the first appellate Court vide order dated 28.4.1999.
Hasin Begum.
The Union of India claimed title over the suit land illegally and in an unauthorised manner on 22.2.1993 and afterwards, thus the cause of action arose to approach the companyrt.
Plaintiff failed to prove the partition between his ancestors in 1819.
During the pendency of the said appeal, he preferred an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 hereinafter called CPC on 6.4.1998 for adducing additional evidence, i.e., Will executed by his maternal grandfather dated 1.3.1929 in his favour bequeathing the suit property.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Second Appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree.
Hence, this appeal.
The suit land was given on rent to the State authorities in Agra by executing a rent numbere for a sum of Rs.22/ per month.
The defendant number1/appellant filed the written statement denying the averments and ownership of the plaintiff respondent number1 and averred that the land belonged to the Ministry of Defence, i.e., Union of India, a part of which has been leased out to several persons for agriculture work and their lease has been renewed from time to time.
The registered partition deed stood duly proved and it was the proof of the title of the plaintiff respondent number1.
The said land was never sold, alienated, transferred or gifted to any person either by the plaintiff or his ancestors at any point of time.
As they became unauthorised occupants, proceedings had been initiated in accordance with law and eviction order had been passed against the occupants tenants.
Subsequently, the land was partitioned between the ancestors of the plaintiff in the year 1819.
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.4.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No.289 of 2000 by which it has upheld the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated 15.10.1999 passed in Civil Appeal No.81 of 1998 by which the first appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 20.1.1998 passed in Original Suit No.442 of 1995 wherein the plaintiff respondent number1 had sought declaration of title of the ownership in respect of the suit property.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are Plaintiff respondent number1 Ibrahim Uddin filed Original Suit No.442 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra on 25.7.1995 seeking a decree for declaration that he was the owner of the suit property Agriculture land measuring 25 bighas , making averments that the suit land originally had been with the Maratha Government Scindia Gwalior .
The ancestors of the plaintiff having close association with the Maratha Government, were made a grant in respect of the suit land in the year 1800.
