Shiv Murat
Shiv Murat
FACTS
The land in question relates to the plot No. 181/1, 184/1, 184/2, 184/3 and 184/3 situated in
village Madhupur, Pargana Musali, Tehsil Chunar, District Mirzapur (now Sonbhadra). The
name of the appellant is recorded as the Sirdhar of these plots before the consolidation of the
plots begin. During the process of consolidation, the respondent got her name registered in
revenue records by fraud as alleged by the appellant.
The appellant filed an objection under section 12 of the U.P consolidation of Holdings Act
against the entry of respondent’s name in the records. The consolidate officer allowed the
objection vide order dated 11.01.1982.
The respondent filed an appeal in the Court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The
respondent also filed a fictitious compromise before the Settlement Officer which, was
procured by the fraud as per the contention of appellant. According to the compromise filed
by the respondent, the entire disputed property becomes the bhumidari of the respondent and
respondent becomes the sole beneficiary of the property.
The appellant challenged the compromise as fraudulent on two ground: Firstly, the appellant
could not have entered in such compromise which is completely against his favour. Secondly,
the compromise deeds purports to bear the signature of the appellant which was attested by
one Shri Prabakhar Nath Advocate. However Prabhakr Nath Advocate was the lawyer of the
respondent in the appeal filed before the Settlement officer. The appellant claimed that he had
no knowledge of the compromise deed and never instructed on the deed. The Settlement
officer passed the ex-parte order dated. 31.01.1983 and disposed of the appeal filed by the
respondent due to which the entire property was recognized in the name of the respondent.
The appellant thereafter filed an application for setting side the order of the Settlement officer
on the ground that the officer had committed the error by not considering the fact that the
Shri Prabhakar Nath Advocate was the lawyer of the respondent and obtained this ex-parte
order. It is further claimed that he was not allowed to produce the lead evidence.
The Settlement Officer dismissed the application of the appellant on the basis of compromise
deed which was attested by the Advocate.
The appellant filed a Revision petition against the said order before the Deputy Director of
consolidation. It was also dismissed vide. Order dated. 03.08.2004.
The appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ petition. 9899 of 1985 in the Allahabad High Court
which was also dismissed
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 court opined
that the compromise deed had been signed by the appellant and his signature was duly
verified by the counsel and these facts are not interference by the High Court under Article
226.
The appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgement passed by the
High court in Civil Misc. Writ petition. 9899 of 1985.
MATTER IN ISSUE
JUDGEMENT
The land was purchased by one Mstt. Tapesara, who was the mother in law of 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. On the other hand, the
appellant is the son of the Mstt Tapesara’s sister. Mstt Tapesara who doesn’t become the
legal heir of the property 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. Thus, in absence of the material evidence on record, the court held that
the appellant failed to prove his right on the disputed land. The Apex court hold the High
Court 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.
REFERENCES
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86218936/
SHIV MURAT (D) BY LRS V. SATYAWATI & ORS. [2014] INSC 255 (4 APRIL
2014)