NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday brought the curtains down on a nearly a century-old family dispute over the partition of the properties in Uttar Pradesh.
The top court decided the dispute pertaining to the partition of the land holding between the three brothers of a family which started in 1928.
The dispute revolves around the share of properties of three brothers Sita Ram, Ramesar, and Jagesar who were sons of one Gajadhar Misra.
Sita Ram was issueless, Ramesar had a son by the name Bhagauti and Jagesar had three sons by the name Basdeo, Sarju, and Shabhu.
A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court upholding the decision of the deputy director of consolidation allowing two branches of the family (of Ramesar and Jagesar) equal share of the land holding.
The bench said that Jagesar's branch would be entitled to take Sita Ram's 1/3rd share only if it is established that Ramesar had predeceased Sita Ram and this question was not decided by the Civil Court in the partition suit and it was raised only before the consolidation authorities.
"Therefore it is not correct to say that the Consolidation authorities went beyond the civil court's decree. Finding that there was no evidence regarding the dates of death, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found it equitable to distribute Sita Ram's 1/3rd share equally between the branches of Ramesar and Jagesar", it said.
It added, "Therefore, the High Court was right in upholding the judgement of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and we find no reason to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is dismissed".
The bench noted that in the year 1928, Bhagauti filed a suit for partition and when an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court was raised, the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court.
"Accordingly, it was presented to the Additional Civil Court and numbered as Suit of 1929," it said.
It noted that by consent of parties, the dispute was referred to arbitration by elders, and the arbitration award about the manner of partition was accepted and the suit decreed in terms of the award.
The bench said that it appears that Sita Ram as well as Ramesar, two of the three sons of Gajadhar Misra died after the decree but the exact dates of death of Sita Ram and Ramesar are not indicated.
"However, it was claimed by one group that Ramesar pre-deceased Sita Ram and that, therefore, Sita Ram's 1/3rd share went to Jagesar by way of survivorship, making the share of Jagesar as 2/3rd", it said.
In 1944, Bhagauti, son of Ramesar filed a suit claiming that the decree passed in the suit of the year 1929 was collusive and not binding, which was dismissed by the trial Court by a Judgment dated January 21, 1946, and the dismissal was confirmed by the first appellate court, it said.
"It appears that mutation in the revenue records took place in 1952 and thereafter objections were filed apparently by both parties under Section 9 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The rival contentions revolved around the validity of the partition decree passed in Suit of 1929 and the dismissal of the subsequent suit of the year 1944. One branch of the family claimed that the partition decree was never given effect to and that the land continued to be in their possession", the bench said.
It noted that the Consolidation officer passed an order dated May 4, 1973, holding that the share of Ramesar got separated in the partition that took place in 1929 and that the shares of Jagesar and Sita Ram were held jointly and that therefore, upon the death of Sita Ram without any issues, his share would have gone to Jagesar.
"As a consequence, the consolidation officer held that Jangi and Triloki, the children of Bhagauti, who was the son of Ramesar will get only 1/3rd share and the children of Jagesar will get 2/3rd share", the bench said.
This order led to further disputes between the children of Bhagauti and Jagesar and appeals were filed.
The appeal of the persons representing the branch of Jagesar was confined to a self-acquired property, even in which the other branch was allotted 1/3rd share, it said.
However, the Assistant Settlement Officer dismissed the appeal filed by the members of the branch of Jagesar which led to the filing of two revision petitions by the branch of Jagesar and another revision petition by the branch of Ramesar.
The bench said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision petition filed by the branch of Ramesar and dismissed the revision petitions filed by the branch of Jagesar.
"This was on the ground that the preliminary decree for partition granted in the suit of the year 1929 was never given effect to. It was also held that there was no evidence to show who among the two namely, Sita Ram and Ramesar died first. The revisional authority, therefore, held that both the branches of Ramesar and Jagesar are entitled to half share each", it said.
The matter reached the Allahabad High Court in 1974 which in its order dated September 11, 2009, dismissed the pleas filed by the branch of Jagesar and upheld the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.