4 companytended that remarriage of Smt.
The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Nainital dismissed Chander .Pals appeal under Section 11 against the order of the Consolida tion Officer by order dated 14.2.1972 Annexure IV .
Mainia, but to her son Chander Pal born to her after her remarriage with Gopal Singh.
It is on this basis that the High Court has directed the Deputy Director, Consolidation, to decide respondent No.
Reliance was placed by the High Court on a decision of the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director Consolidation, A.I.R. 1978 C. 1557 for reaching its companyclusion and it was held that this strong presumption of validity of Smt.
Ultimately, the Consolidation Officer, Afzalgarh, by his order dated 29.1.1972 Annexure III passed under section 9 A of the Act dismissed Chander Pals claim to the holding.
The appellant, Smt.
Sukhia was remarried to Gopal Singh in Karwa form, according to caste custom, after Chain Sukhs death and that they had been living together as husband and wife for sever al years numberfurther proof of legality of the remarriage was necessary.
Sukhia.
Sukhias remarriage with Gopal Singh did number really arise.
Sukhia.
The learned companynsel also referred to two Single Bench decisions of the Allahabad High Court, namely, Jaganath and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Gorakhpur and others, 1976 AWC 654 and Chhiddoo Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation others, 1976 AWC 809.
Mainia, Chain Sukhs widow, Smt.
Sukhias Karwa with Gopal Singh number being proved to be a legal marriage, the succes sion would be governed on the basis that she.
Mainia herself numberfault can be found with the reasoning or companyclusion of the High Court.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.5.79 of the Allaha bad High Court in W.P. No.
Sukhia companytinued to remain in possession of this holding till her death in 1965.
4, Chander Pal by virtue of sec tion 174 of that Act.
The Consolida tion Officer held that Smt.
Consequently, it was held by the High Court that the finding of the companysolidation authorities that Smt.
It was observed that Smt.
In reply, Shri K.M. Sinha, learned companynsel for re spondent No.
Even according to the appellant, Smt.
Sukhias remarriage with Gopal Singh and the case of the appellant before the Consolidation Officer was put on the basis of Smt.
Sukhia with Gopal Singh after the death of Chain Sukh prior to the date of vesting i.e., 1.7.
Sukhia after her remarriage with Gopal Singh, companyld number inherit as a heir of Chain Sukh.
Sukhia cultivated the land throughout as the widow of Chain Sukh and therefore Chain Sukhs sister Smt.
Sukhias marriage with Gopal Singh was number proved to be legal and, therefore, Smt.
Sukhia had been shown in the family register as widow of Chain Sukh which shows that Smt.
Mainia herself in her reply dated 10.12.1970 as mentioned in the order dated 15.11.1972 Annexure V by the Deputy Direc tor Consolidation while deciding Chander Pals revision.
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was then filed by Chander Pal in the High Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated May 11, 1979.
It was held that Smt.
Sukhia being remarried to Gopal Singh and Chander Pal being the son born to Smt.
Mainia, has assailed the decision of the High Court substan tially on the ground that Smt.
Sukhia lived in the house of Gopal Singh for several years there is numberpositive evidence of her remarriage with Gopal Singh and therefore a legal marriage of Smt.
The High Court has held that the companysolidation authorities erred in deciding the matter on the basis that Smt.
Sukhias interest in the holding as her son.
Sukhia on her remarriage with Gopal Singh lost her interest in the holding and by virtue of section 171 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, appellant, Smt.
Mainias clear admission that Smt.
Howev er, the Settlement Officer held that even though Smt.
Moreover, the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 29.1.
It is obvious even from the orders of the companysolida tion authorities that Smt.
Sukhia with Gopal Singh is number proved.
The High Court then proceeded to examine the legal companysequences of Smt.
1972 Annexure III also indicates that before the Consolidation Officer appellant, Smt.
The said Chain Sukh died issueless prior to the date of vesting, that is, 1.7.1952 under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Zamindari Abolition Act survived by his widow, Smt.
Sukhia in 1965 the succession was governed by section 172 read with section 171 of the Zamind ari Abolition Act on account of which by virtue of clause m of section 171 appellant Smt.
In our opinion, the companytention of learned companynsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and on the case set up by Smt.
Mainia, being the sister of Chain Sukh inherited the interest in the holding.
The companytroversy between the parties before the companysolidation authorities was at best only about the validity of the remarriage and number its factum.
1952 under the Zamindari Abolition Act being the admitted case of appellant Smt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A revision by Chander Pal to the Deputy Director Consolidation, Moradabad, Camp Kashipur, under Section 48 was also dismissed by order dated 15.11.1972 Annexure V .
Sukhia was treated as a widow of Chain Sukh till the time of her death.
It was pointed out that in view of appellant Smt.
The interest of Chain Sukh as the occupancy tenant of the holding devolved upon his widow, Smt.
141 in village Khera, Laxmipur, Pargana Kashipur in District Naimtal of which one Chain Sukh was initially the occupancy tenant.
On this basis, it was urged that the possession of Smt.
4, Chander Pal, during the companysolidation proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act in respect of this holding, each of them claiming sole interest therein to the exclusion of the other.
The High Court has quashed the orders passed by the Consoli dation Authorities and directed the Deputy Director Consol idation to decide the revision of Chander Pal afresh on the basis of the decision given in the writ petition.
The High Court was, therefore, right in taking the view that the matter must be decided on the basis of Smt.
Sukhias remar riage with Gopal Singh was number rebutted by the entry in the family register which companytinued to show Smt.
Mainia inherited it after the death of Smt.
Sukhia being remarried to Gopal Singh a companyple of years after the death of her first husband Chain Sukh and the question of factum or validity of Smt.
A dispute arose between appellant, Smt.
Sukhia did Karwa with Gopal Singh but Smt.
Sukhias possession of the holding till the time of her death was merely as widow of Chain Sukh.
was Chain Sukhs widow at the time of her death.
4, was born to Sukhia during her wedlock with Gopal Singh.
It was held by the High Court that the effect of the provisions of the Tenancy Act was that her interest in the holding after her remarriage was in her own right and number as widow of Chain Sukh and therefore, by virtue of section 180 2 of the Tenancy Act she acquired an independent right which did number devolve upon her death to Chain Sukhs sister, appellant Smt.
Sukhia remarriage with Gopal Singh prior to the date of vesting i.e., 1.7.1952 under the Zamindari Abolition Act and her companytinuous possession over the holding after her remar riage.
Mainia, did number dispute even the validity of Smt.
Mainia and respondent No.
Sukhia, in accordance with section 35 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act in the absence of any male lineal descendant of Chain Sukh.
Sukhia, remarried Gopal Singh in Karwa form according to the caste custom about two years after the death of Chain Sukh and a son, Chander Pal, respondent No.
It was held that Smt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.
Sukhia in the holding at the time of her death number being as a widow of Chain Sukh but in her own right the succession is governed number by section 172 but by section 174 of the Zamindari Abolition Act under which respondent No.
N. Lekhi and M.K. Garg for the Appellant.
Sukhia after her remarriage so that Chander Pal companyld number claim to be a legal heir of Smt.
It was held that Chander Pal, number being the son of Smt.
3048 of 1973 decided on May 11, 1979.
M. Sinha, Deepak Jaiswal and Pramod Swarup for the Respondents.
Sukhias first husband Chain Sukh.
955 of 1981.
The subject matter of the dispute is a holding companypris ing of Khata No.
Mainia in her reply dated 10.12.1970 had stated that Smt.
Sukhias remarriage in Karwa form according to the caste custom with Gopal Singh a companyple of years after the death of Chain Sukh was pleaded by Smt.
4, Chander Pal, inherited Smt.
Sukhia from Chain Sukh but the son born to Smt.
3048 of 1973.
Shri P.N. Lekhi, learned companynsel for the appellant, Smt.
4, Chander Pals revision afresh.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
