Although the vendors, Kaley Singh and others did number prefer an appeal from the pre emption decree passed against them, Sher Singh did number rest companytent and took the matter in further appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in so far as his right to and ejectment from the plots of land in question and cancellation of the aforesaid lease deed in his favour were companycerned.
though the Act came into force in the State on January 26, 1951, the issue of numberification under section 4 thereof was made to companyncide with the companymencement of 1360 Fasli i.e. July 1, 1952.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Decree Order dated 31 10 67 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
The first appeals preferred against the dismissal of these suits also proved abortive as they were dismissed on September 1, 1959.
Meanwhile the Uttar Pradesh Legislature passed the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 P. Act No.
The order passed by the 12 329SCI/78 Consolidation Officer, Kanth, rejecting the objections of respondents 2 and 3 to the entries in the records was upheld by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Amroha, in first appeal as also by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow in second appeal by orders made on April 16, 1961 and August 21, 1962 respectively.
Pursuant to the observations made by the High Court in its aforesaid judgment dated April 13, 1953, disposing of the appeal of Sher Singh, respondents 2 and 3 filed ejectment suits against Sher Singh under section 209 of the Act which were dismissed on November 20, 1953.
in which the plots of land in question are situate.
Respondents 2 and 3 thereupon took the matter in second appeal to the High Court which was stayed on account of the companymencement of the companysolidation operations in the village.
1 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
Thereafter respondents 2 and 3 filed objections under section 9 2 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter called the 1953 Act disputing the companyrectness of the entries in the records showing Sher Singh as Bhumidar of the plots of land in question and praying that the latters name be expunged from the records and in his place, their names be substituted as Bhumidars but the same were rejected by the Consolidation Officer IV at Kanth vide his orders dated December 24, 1961.
Dissatisfied with these orders of the Consolidation authorities, respondents 2 and 3 took the matter in revision under section 48 of the 1953 Act to the Joint Director of Consolidation, U.P. who allowed the same and set aside the companycurrent orders of the Consolidation Officer,, the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director, Consolidation, holding that the lease in favour of Sher Singh was fictitious that the basis of Sher Singhs title viz.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and V. J. Francis for the Appellant.
P. Singh for Respondents Nos.
The High Court accordingly set aside the decree passed against Sher Singh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
4 of 1969.
Nearly a month and a half later i.e. on September 6, 1945 the said Chaudhary, Vijay Kunwar Singh and Virendra Kunwar Singh alongwith their mother, Smt.
These suits were decreed by the Munsif in favour of respondents 2 and 3 on April 26, 1947.
It is this order of the Joint Director which was challenged before the High Court by Sher Singh in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and on the failure thereof has been impugned before us.
On appeal, the Civil Judge, Moradabad, by Ms judgment dated November 9, 1948 affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. The litigation culminating in this appeal by special leave has a long and chequered history which may be summarised thus By deed dated July 20, 1945, registered on July 30, 1945, Chaudhary Vijay Kunwar singh and virendra kunwar Singh, Zamin dars of Mithanpur U.P leased out ten plots of land admeasuring 6.63 acres situate in Mahal Safed Mouza Mahendri Sikandarpur Pargana Amroha District Moradabad which were in their possession as khudkhast self cultivating possession to Sher Singh the original appellant, for a period of ten years beginning from the year 1353 Fasli to the end of the year 1362 Fasli.
On the basis of this lease deed, Sher Singh, claimed to have obtained possession of the aforesaid plots of land and was recorded as a hereditary tenant in respect thereof in the revenue record.
the aforesaid lease being fictitious intended to defraud the preemptors, the recorded entries in favour of Sher Singh companyld companyfer numbertitle upon him that Sher Singhs position companyld be deemed to be only that of an agent carrying on cultivation on behalf of his brothers, the vendees, who were entitled to the land in view of the sale in their favour till it was pre empted and that the effect of his finding would be that the possession of Sher Singh after execution of the Patta shall be deemed to be the possession of the vendees as Sher Singh bad himself numbertitle to the land.
By its judgment and decree dated April 13, 1953, the High Court allowed the appeal of Sher Singh holding that the revenue companyrts alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit seeking relief of ejectment of the lessee Sher Singh and the civil companyrts had numbersuch jurisdiction.
Savitri Kunwar Singh, executed a sale deed in respect of their proprietary right and interest in the aforesaid plots of land in favour of Kaley Singh, Harbans Singh and Nihal Singh, brothers of Sher Singh, and one Chajju Singh.
Asserting their right of pre emption in respect of the aforesaid transaction of sale on the ground of their being companysharers in the Mahal in which the said plots of land are, situate, Jai Kumar Singh and Roop Kumar Singh, respondents 2 and 3 herein, brought four suits in the Court of the Munsif, Moradabad against the aforesaid vendors and vendees and Sher Singh for possession of the land as also for cancellation of the aforesaid lease deed in favour of Sher Singh on the ground that it was fictitious and fraudulant and was executed with a view to defeat their right of pre emption.
238 of 1966.
