Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. On 24.11.1975 another set of objections were filed by Asharam under Section 12 of the Act of 1953 claiming bhumidhari rights on the basis of some kind of an agreement to sell between him and Smt. Balraji. In the alternate, Asharam claimed sirdari rights to the land in dispute on the basis of possession. It must be remarked here that in the objections filed by Asharam, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, there is no case of an heirship pleaded by him, entitling him to inherit the land in dispute from Balraji upon the latter's demise intestate. Though, Asharam has said that Balraji was issueless and an aunt of his, it is not indicated by any precise description of relationship through bloodline or marriage, how Asharam was an heir of Balraji's, entitling him to inherit the land in dispute. There is no pedigree also propounded by Asharam in his objections/ application under Section 12 filed before the Consolidation Officer, connecting him to Balraji as an heir. All that Asharam says in his objection is that about 7 or 8 years ago, Smt. Balraji expressed her wish to go on a pilgrimage. Asharam thereupon paid her a sum of Rs.5000/- in order to enable her to perform the pilgrimage. Smt. Balraji in lieu of aforesaid money that she received, put Asharam in ownership possession of the land in dispute and said that once back from pilgrimage, she would execute a sale deed in Asharam's favour, after receiving a further consideration of Rs.10,000/-. The objections proceed that Smt. Balraji never returned from her pilgrimage to Village Duhia.

22. The Consolidation Officer then proceeded to observe that on behalf of Asharam, Jagdamba, Sabhajeet, Girdhari Yadav and Mahendra Nath, the Panchayat Secretary, Village Duhia have testified. They have produced the Family Register relating to the Village and in the said register, Balraji's name is not entered. The Consolidation Officer has drawn an inference that the absence of Balraji's name in the Family Register of the Village shows for the 10 years past, she did not live in Village Duhia. It is then noticed that Jagdamba Prasad, Vijay Nath and Sabhajeet in their testimony have said that Smt. Balraji had proceeded on pilgrimage, but never returned. It is held by the Consolidation Officer that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses. There is then an abrupt remark by the Consolidation Officer that from these facts, it is proved that Smt. Balraji is missing (laapata) for more than seven years and her civil death has to be presumed. On 29.07.1974, the presence of Balraji is not established. The said fact has also been acknowledged by Kamla Shankar, Pradhan that Smt. Balraji had proceeded on a pilgrimage and her whereabouts are not known since. The conclusion reached by the Consolidation Officer from these facts is that Smt. Balraji was not alive on 29.05.1974, and, therefore, could not have executed the sale deed in favour of Dhan Raji. Smt. Dhan Raji does not, therefore, derive any title under the sale deed. It is in this manner that Issues Nos.1, 2 and 3 were answered by the Consolidation Officer.

52. There are some other very important issues that have been approached from a manifestly erroneous vantage by the Authorities below. The chief amongst these is the finding holding Balraji, who appeared before the Consolidation Officer, to be a imposter raising a presumption about her civil death. The entire presumption about her civil death is based on the assertion in the objections filed by Asharam, respondent No.4 that Balraji went on a pilgrimage 7-8 years ante-dating the date of the objections, that is to say, 22.11.1975 and ever since not returned to Village Duhia; and, her whereabouts are not known. A case of civil death has been built on the edifice of Balraji going on a pilgrimage 6-7 years before the objections were heard by the Consolidation Officer and some evidence about 10 years before that date, and not being heard of ever since at Duhia or by respondent No.4. The case about Balraji's civil death has been too readily accepted by all the Authorities below; and accepted on manifestly illegal premises. The Consolidation Officer has recorded the following finding about Balraji's civil death based on a presumption, under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act:

56. The fourth respondent has invoked the presumption under Section 108 on the foot of facts and evidence that 7-8 years ante-dating the filing of his objections before the Consolidation Officer, Smt. Balraji borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/- from Asharam, respondent No.4 and proceeded on pilgrimage. He has then said that she has not been heard of in Village Duhia eversince. The Consolidation Officer, as already remarked, has readily accepted a case of civil death by holding that witnesses Jagdamba Prasad and Sabhajeet in their testimony have said that Balraji proceeded on pilgrimage, but never returned. From this testimony, an inference has been readily drawn by the Consolidation Officer that looking to the evidence of these witnesses, there is no reason to disbelieve it.