advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, April 5, 2014

As per Settlement Deed - Compromise entered into - duly attested by the counsel of opp. party - as per law ,the widow of only deceased son of original owner was the legal heir and entitled for the disputed land in the absence of will deed contrary to it , others are not entitled to any share - high court not interfered - Apex court dismissed the appeal = SHIV MURAT (D) BY LRS. ………APPELLANTS Vs. SATYAWATI & ORS. ……… RESPONDENTS =2014 ( Apr.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41383

   As per Settlement Deed - Compromise  entered into - duly attested by the counsel of opp. party - as per law ,the widow of  only deceased son of original owner was the legal heir and entitled for the disputed land in the absence of will deed contrary to it , others are not entitled to any share - high court not interfered - Apex court dismissed the appeal = 

The  respondent  filed  a   fictitious
compromise before  the  learned  Settlement  Officer,  Consolidation  which,
according to  the  appellant,  was  procured  by  fraud.  According  to  the
compromise 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.

5. The appellant challenged the compromise as  fraudulent  on  two  grounds,
firstly, the appellant could not have entered  into  such  compromise  which
goes entirely against his favour and secondly,  the  compromise  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.  The  appellant  never
instructed on the compromise deed. The appellant  claimed  that  he  had  no
knowledge of the compromise  deed.  The  Settlement  Officer,  Consolidation
passed the ex-parte order dated 31.1.1983 and disposed of the  appeal  filed
by the respondent. As a result  of  this  Order,  the  entire  property  was
recognized in the name of the respondent.=
The appellant thereafter filed  an  application  for  setting  aside  the
Order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation claiming that the  Settlement
Officer had committed error by  not  taking  into  consideration  that  Shri
Prabhakar Nath Pathak Advocate was in fact the lawyer of the respondent  and
he, in collusion with the respondent, had obtained this ex-parte  Order.  It
is further claimed by  the  appellant  that  he  was  not  allowed  to  lead
evidence regarding the deed compromise.=

    The  settlement  deed
produced by the respondent before the Court of Assistant Settlement  Officer
has been relied upon by the courts below to  come  to  the  above  mentioned
conclusion and the same has been concurred with by the High  Court. 
 As  per
the material evidence produced on record, the land in dispute was  purchased
by one Mstt. 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. 
The appellant, on the other  hand,  is  the
son of Mstt. Tapesara’s sister, Mstt. Jageshara  who  does  not  become  the
legal heir on the death of the owner. 
Therefore, on the death  of  the  only
son of the owner of the land, her daughter in law becomes the legal heir  of the property in absence of any will to prove  the  contrary.  
Moreover,  the
settlement deed states that the two parties  share  amicable  relations  and
wish to live peacefully. 
Therefore, they have, on their free  will,  entered
into a compromise on the issue since the litigation  was  not  in  the  best
interest of either  of  the  parties.  
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  any
material evidence on record, we are of the opinion that  the  appellant  has
failed to prove his right on the land in dispute. 
We  are  not  inclined  to
interfere with  the  concurrent  findings  of  the  original  and  appellate
authority which establish that a compromise had been  entered  into  between
the parties which was duly verified by Advocate Shri Pathak. 
Hence, we  hold
that the High Court was correct in not interfering with the findings of  the
original and appellate authorities, particularly, when both the  authorities
have  concurrently  relied  upon  the  compromise  deed.   
The   appeal   is
accordingly dismissed. Interim orders dated 27.9.2004  and  7.12.2007  shall
stand vacated.

2014 ( Apr.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41383
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, V. GOPALA GOWDA
                                                       NON REPORTABLE




                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5766  OF 2007










SHIV MURAT (D) BY LRS.                    ………APPELLANTS

                                     Vs.

SATYAWATI & ORS.                            ……… RESPONDENTS













                               J U D G M E N T












V.Gopala Gowda, J.





      This appeal is filed by the appellant questioning the  correctness  of
the judgment and final Order dated 3.8.2004 passed  by  the  High  Court  of
Judicature at Allahabad in Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.  9989  of  1985
urging various facts and legal contentions in justification of his claim.

2. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the  case  of
the appellant and also to find out whether the  appellant  is  entitled  for
the relief as prayed in this appeal.

      The land in question relates to plot no. 182/1, 184/1, 184/2 and 184/3
situated in  village  Madhupur,  Pargana  Musali,  Tehsil  Chunar,  District
Mirzapur (now Sonbhadra). The name of the  appellant  was  recorded  as  the
Sirdhar of  these  plots  before  the  consolidation  of  the  plots  began.
However, during the process of consolidation, the respondent,  allegedly  by
fraud, got her name entered in the revenue records.

3.  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  objection  was  allowed  by  the
Consolidation Officer vide Order dated 11.1.1982.

4. Aggrieved by the Order, the respondent filed an appeal in  the  Court  of
Settlement  Officer,  Consolidation.  The  respondent  filed  a   fictitious
compromise before  the  learned  Settlement  Officer,  Consolidation  which,
according to  the  appellant,  was  procured  by  fraud.  According  to  the
compromise 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.

5. The appellant challenged the compromise as  fraudulent  on  two  grounds,
firstly, the appellant could not have entered  into  such  compromise  which
goes entirely against his favour and secondly,  the  compromise  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.  The  appellant  never
instructed on the compromise deed. The appellant  claimed  that  he  had  no
knowledge of the compromise  deed.  The  Settlement  Officer,  Consolidation
passed the ex-parte order dated 31.1.1983 and disposed of the  appeal  filed
by the respondent. As a result  of  this  Order,  the  entire  property  was
recognized in the name of the respondent.

6. The appellant thereafter filed  an  application  for  setting  aside  the
Order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation claiming that the  Settlement
Officer had committed error by  not  taking  into  consideration  that  Shri
Prabhakar Nath Pathak Advocate was in fact the lawyer of the respondent  and
he, in collusion with the respondent, had obtained this ex-parte  Order.  It
is further claimed by  the  appellant  that  he  was  not  allowed  to  lead
evidence regarding the deed compromise.

7. The learned Settlement Officer, vide Order dated 23.6.1984, rejected  the
application of the appellant on the basis of the compromise deed  which  was
attested by the advocate.

8. Against the said Order, the appellant filed  a  Revision  Petition  being
Revision  Petition  No.  10  before   the   learned   Deputy   Director   of
Consolidation. The same was dismissed vide Order dated 11.12.1984.

9.    The appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9899 of 1985 in  the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was also  dismissed  vide  order
dated 3.8.2004.

10. 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.  The  High  Court  perused  the  impugned
Orders and opined that a finding of fact has been  recorded  by  the  courts
below that the compromise deed had been signed  by  the  appellant  and  his
signature had been duly verified by his counsel Shri Prabhakar Nath  Pathak.
These finding of facts are not open to interference by the High Court  under
Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, this appeal.

11. We have  heard  both  the  sides  and  carefully  perused  the  material
evidence on record produced before us by the parties.  The  settlement  deed
produced by the respondent before the Court of Assistant Settlement  Officer
has been relied upon by the courts below to  come  to  the  above  mentioned
conclusion and the same has been concurred with by the High  Court.  As  per
the material evidence produced on record, the land in dispute was  purchased
by one Mstt. 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. The appellant, on the other  hand,  is  the
son of Mstt. Tapesara’s sister, Mstt. Jageshara  who  does  not  become  the
legal heir on the death of the owner. Therefore, on the death  of  the  only
son of the owner of the land, her daughter in law becomes the legal heir  of
the property in absence of any will to prove  the  contrary.  Moreover,  the
settlement deed states that the two parties  share  amicable  relations  and
wish to live peacefully. Therefore, they have, on their free  will,  entered
into a compromise on the issue since the litigation  was  not  in  the  best
interest of either  of  the  parties.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  any
material evidence on record, we are of the opinion that  the  appellant  has
failed to prove his right on the land in dispute. We  are  not  inclined  to
interfere with  the  concurrent  findings  of  the  original  and  appellate
authority which establish that a compromise had been  entered  into  between
the parties which was duly verified by Advocate Shri Pathak. Hence, we  hold
that the High Court was correct in not interfering with the findings of  the
original and appellate authorities, particularly, when both the  authorities
have  concurrently  relied  upon  the  compromise  deed.   The   appeal   is
accordingly dismissed. Interim orders dated 27.9.2004  and  7.12.2007  shall
stand vacated.




                                ………………………………………………………………………J.
                                [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]




                               ………………………………………………………………………J.
                          [V. GOPALA GOWDA]


New Delhi,
April 4, 2014



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.