Summary
The State of U.P. sued in 1964 for a 20-bigha grove at Rampur, pleading that the rent-free grant made by Nawab Hamid Ali Khan to his wife in 1924 had been resumed by his successor in 1930 and vested in the State. The defendant claimed continuous possession since 1924 and bhumidhari rights. The suit was decreed, affirmed in first appeal and the second appeal dismissed in 2006. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the second appeal. No resumption order or revenue order was produced; the only proof was a Muafiat Register with loose pages and the relevant entry in a different ink, which the clerk could not explain. The State led no evidence of its own possession, ignored a Deputy Collector's spot-inspection finding of the defendant's possession, and relied on a letter whose signature was proved only by a distant relative. The burden had been wrongly placed on the defendant.
Issues
- Whether the State proved resumption of the 1924 grant when no resumption order or consequential revenue order was produced and the only evidence was a Muafiat Register with loose pages and the relevant entry in a different ink.
- Whether the courts below could find the State in possession since 1930 on assumptions, while ignoring a Deputy Collector's spot-inspection finding and the defendant's documentary and oral evidence of continuous possession.
- Whether a letter of 1954 attributed to the defendant, whose signature was denied and proved only through a nephew of a step-sister, could found a finding that she was out of possession.
- Whether the burden of proof was wrongly shifted to the defendant in a suit by the State for declaration and possession.
Provisions considered
- Bhumidhari rights on commencement of the Act, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950The defendant pleaded that she held the grove on the commencement of the Act and became bhumidhar; the appellants complained that her continuous possession, and hence her rights under the Act, had not been considered. The point was left open for the High Court on remand. (¶¶ 4, 10, 33)
- Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The defendant's amendment of the written statement, rejected by the trial court as belated, was allowed by the District Judge in 1971, who remanded the suit for fresh decision with additional issues. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
- Transfer of first appeals, U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1970The first appeal originally filed in the High Court was transferred to the District Judge, Rampur, after this Act. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Held
- The first fact the plaintiff State had to prove was resumption of the grant. Neither any order of resumption nor any revenue order incorporating it was filed, the records being said to have been destroyed in a fire in 1947. The true copy of the Muafiat Register had torn binding, loose pages, missing index and end pages, and the single entry about this land was in black ink while the rest was in blue-black; the clerk who produced it (PW-2) had no explanation. The courts below relied on it merely because it was a State document. Prima facie there was no evidence to prove resumption. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 18)
- The State led no evidence of possession since 1930. In the State's own proceedings for correction of records, the Deputy Collector, after spot inspections, recorded on 03.01.1961 that the defendant was in occupation and possession; though such proceedings are summary, a finding of a Class-I officer after inspection ought not to have been ignored. The defendant's documentary and oral evidence of continuous possession was ignored, and the courts proceeded on assumptions and presumptions. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The 1954 letter heavily relied upon by the courts below was denied by the defendant and its signature was sought to be proved through PW-3, a clerk whose wife was the step-daughter of the defendant's sister and who did not know the sister's name, had never corresponded with the defendant and had never seen her write; his evidence was far-fetched and doubtful, and no handwriting expert was examined. Even on its contents the letter referred only to an encroachment by the Garden Department on part of her land, not loss of the whole. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- The High Court erred in not considering relevant material, in relying on inadmissible evidence or evidence with no bearing on the findings, and in wrongly placing the burden on the defendant; it ought to have carefully scrutinised the evidence before concluding. The contention that a Muslim husband's gift to his wife during marriage is irrevocable was left to be raised before the High Court. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Allahabad High Court's judgment of 21.07.2006 set aside and Second Appeal No. 813 of 1975 restored for fresh hearing in the light of the observations, all points left open to the parties; the High Court requested to decide expeditiously.