NON­REPORTABLE
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3818 OF 2012
SARJU MISHRA (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. …Appellant(s)
Versus
JANGI (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.           …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. This   appeal   arises   out   of   the   dismissal   of   a   writ   petition
challenging the outcome of the proceedings under Section 9­A(2)
of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
2. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respective
parties.
3. Since   the   litigation   in   which   the   parties   are   involved,   is
nearly a century  old, it may  be necessary to begin the narration
1

with a genealogy tree of the family. The common ancestor of both
the parties was one Gajadhar Misra. He had three sons by name
Sita   Ram,   Ramesar   and   Jagesar.   Sita   Ram   died   issueless.
Ramesar   had   a   son   by   name   Bhagauti.   This   Bhagauti   had   two
sons by name Jangi and Triloki.
4. Jagesar   had   three   sons   by   name   Basdeo,   Sarju   and
Shabhu.  Each of them had his own lineage.  
5. The genealogy tree of the family is as follows:­
Gajadhar Misra
  Sita Ram  Ramesar Jagesar
    
(Died Childless) Bhagauti
    Jangi & Triloki         Basdeo    Sarju       Sabhu
    (R1)       (R2)
    Jhinku   Ramamuj
Ram Kripal     Rama Shankar & Krishna Shankar
2

Brijesh & Ambujesh
6. In the year 1928, Bhagauti filed a suit for partition, in suit
No.934   of   1928.   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 No.119 of 1929.
7. 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.
8. It   appears   that   Sita   Ram   as   well   as   Ramesar,   two   of   the
three   sons   of   Gajadhar   Misra   died   after   the   decree.   The   exact
dates   of   death   of   Sita   Ram   and   Ramesar   are   not   indicated.
However, it was claimed by one group that Ramesar pre­deceased
Sita   Ram   and   that,   therefore,   Sita   Ram’s   1/3 rd
  share   went   to
Jagesar   by   way   of  survivorship,  making   the   share   of   Jagesar   as
2/3 rd
.  
3

9. But Bhagauti, son of Ramesar filed a suit in Suit No.331 of
1944 claiming that the decree passed in the suit of the year 1929
was   collusive   and   not   binding.   But   the   said   suit   was   dismissed
by   the   trial   Court   by   a   Judgment   dated   21.01.1946.   The
dismissal was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
10. 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 No.119 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.
11. The   Consolidation   officer   passed   an   Order   dated
04.05.1973,   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
4

gone to Jagesar. As a consequence, the consolidation Officer held
that Jangi & Triloki, the children of Bhagauti, who was the son of
Ramesar will get only 1/3 rd
 share and the children of Jagesar will
get 2/3 rd
 share.
12. Both the branches filed appeals. 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
1/3 rd
 share.
13. The   Assistant   Settlement   Officer   dismissed   the   appeal   filed
by the members of the branch of Jagesar.
14. The above order led to the filing of two revision petitions by
the   branch   of   Jagesar   and   another   revision   petition   by   the
branch of Ramesar.
15. 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
5

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.
16. Aggrieved   by   the   order   of   the   revisional   Authority   allowing
the   revision   petition   filed   by   the   branch   of   Ramesar,   the   other
branch filed a writ petition in WP No.5109 of 1974 on the file of
Judicature at Allahabad.  The said writ petition was dismissed by
the   High   Court   by   an   Order   dated   11.09.2009.   It   is   against   the
said   order   that   the   branch   of   Jagesar   has   come   up   with   the
above appeal.
17. The   main   contention   of   Shri   S.   R.   Singh,   learned   senior
counsel   for   the   appellants   is   that   the   authorities   under   the
Consolidation   of   Holdings   Act   cannot   go   beyond   the   decree
passed   by   the   Civil   Court   and   that   a   preliminary   decree   for
partition   attains   finality   as   regards   the   shares   to   which   the
parties are held entitled, even if no final decree has been passed
resulting in the actual division by  metes and bounds. According
6

to the learned senior counsel for the appellants, the contention of
the respondents as though the decree for partition passed in the
suit of the year 1929 was collusive, already stood rejected in the
suit of the year 1944 and that therefore the authorities under the
Consolidation   Act   are   obliged   to   give   effect   to   the   preliminary
decree for partition. 
18. On first principles, the learned counsel for the appellants is
correct.   But   the   aforesaid   contentions   of   the   learned   senior
counsel   for   the   appellants   overlook   one   crucial   aspect.   At   the
time when the suit for partition of the year 1929 was decreed on
the   basis   of   an   arbitration   award,   all   the   three   brothers   namely
Sita   Ram,   Ramesar   and   Jagesar   were   alive.   They   were   all   held
entitled   to   1/3 rd
  share   each.   It   was   only   subsequently   that   Sita
Ram   died  issueless.  None  of  the  parties  have  any   clue  as  to   the
exact date of death of Sita Ram or Ramesar.   The question as to
who  pre­deceased whom, is not clear  and  there is a  controversy
relating to the same. The claim of the branch of Jagesar was that
Ramesar   pre­deceased   Sita   Ram   and   that,   therefore,   Sita   Ram’s
7

1/3 rd
  share   came   to   Jagesar   by   survivorship.   This   is   why   the
branch of Jagesar claimed 2/3 rd
 share.
19. But even in the Judgment passed in Suit No. 331 of 1944,
no   categorical   finding   was   recorded   in   this   regard.   The   relevant
portion   of   the   Judgment   dated   21.01.1946   passed   in   Suit   No.
331 of 1944 reads as follows:­
“He   also   stated   that  Rameshar   had   died   earlier   to  the
death  of   Sitaram.     There   was  no   cross   examination  of
the   deft   no.1   on   this   point.     Therefore   it   is   clear   that
Rameshar father of the plaintiff pre­deceased Sitaram,
which Sitaram pre­deceased Jageshar.  Thus Jageshar
would   be   entitled   to   inherit   his   share   to   inheritance
bring a   nearer collateral heir them the plaintiff.   If he
died   in   joint   a   with   him   alive   he   would   be   entitled   to
take his share by survivorship, hence in my opinion it
is not necessary to enquire this point.  However, as the
suit no.119 of 1929 must be decreed to have effected a
complete separation between all the parties and as no
union has been proved between Sitaram and Jageshar
must   hold   that   Sitaram   died   separate   from   the   defts
father.  Issue decided accordingly.”
20. The   above   portion   cannot   be   taken   to   be   a   categorical
finding  on the specific issue as to whether Sita Ram died before
or after Ramesar and whether his 1/3 rd
 share went to the branch
of  Jagesar as a consequence. The revisional authority under the
Consolidation Act has not actually gone beyond the Civil Court’s
8

decree for partition. At the time of partition all the three brothers
were   alive.   The   authorities   under   the   Consolidation   Act   were
confronted   with   two   questions,   namely,   (i)   whether   Sita   Ram   or
Ramesar died first; and  (ii)  whether Sita Ram’s 1/3 rd
 share would
go   to   Jagesar   by   way   of   survivorship,   if   he   had   died   after
Ramesar.   The   answer   to   this   question   did   not   depend   upon   the
decree   for   partition.   Therefore,   the   only   ground   of   attack   to   the
order   of   Deputy   Director   of   Consolidation   as   confirmed   by   the
High   Court   cannot   be   sustained.   It   is   true   that   the   Deputy
Director of Consolidation did not articulate his discussion on this
issue with clarity. But that will not make his order vulnerable.
21. To   put   it   in   simple   terms,   Jagesar’s   branch   would   be
entitled   to   take   Sita   Ram’s   1/3 rd
  share   only   if   it   is   established
that Ramesar had pre­deceased Sita Ram. 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
9

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   1/3 rd
  share   equally   between
the branches of Ramesar and Jagesar. Therefore, the High Court
was   right   in   upholding   the   judgment   of   the   Deputy   Director   of
Consolidation  and  we find  no  reason  to interfere with  the  same.
Hence   the   appeal   is   dismissed.     There   will   be   no   order   as   to
costs.
       
… ..…………....................J.
      (Hemant Gupta)
.…..………......................J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)
NEW DELHI
JULY  13, 2022
10