AMAR NATHversusKEWLA DEVI &ANR.

                    [2014] 14 S.C.R. 677


                         AMAR NATH                                 A
                               v.
                    KEWLADEVI &ANR.
               (Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2007)
                       APRIL 22, 2014                              B
 [GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
      s.100- Second appeal- Substantial question of law
- High Courl has committed a grave error in procedure and          c
failed to discharge its duty by notlmming substantial question
of law and setting aside the judgment and decree of first
appellate court- It is a fit case to restore the judgment and
decree passed by first appellate courl wherein it declared
that appellant was the son of the grand-son of respondent's        o
paternal grand-father thereby holding that the order passed
by the Consolidation Officer is void and illegal - Judgment
of High Courl set aside and that of first appellate courl
restored.
      Suit:                                                         E
       Suit claiming title to suit properly and for declaration -
Plaintiff's case that order of Consolidation Officer was
 obtained by fraud- Held: Order of Consolidation Officer was
 obtained on the basis offraud by defendants- Consolidation
 Officer has also committed fraud on appellant, by accepting F
withdrawal of his objection and not going into the issue
 whether he is the rightful heir; with a right in half-share of suit
properly - Suit was not barred by s.331 of U.P Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act nor u/s 49 of Consolidation
of Hoidings Act as it was a suit for possession based on title G
involving question of 'sonship', which was not within the
jurisdiction of authorities under the two Acts - Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950- s.331 -
 Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 - s. 49 -
Jurisdiction - Fraud.                                                H
                                677
678         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014) 14 S.C.R. ·


A          Property Law:
            Agricultural land - Held: When trial court, on the basis
      of the evidence on record, has held that it was proved that
      the appellant was the son of the grandson of respondent's
      paternal grandfather, then automatically the court should
B     have given half the portion of the suit land to him along with
      defendant -Right of appellant cannot simply be
      extinguished because of defendants' plea that he has entered
      into a compromise - Defendants have taken undue
      advantage of appellant's illiteracy and Consolidation Officer
C     has abdicated his role by allowing the objection of appellant
      to be withdrawn and by not examining whether or not
      appellant was indeed the son of defendant's grandfather -
      Order of the Consolidation Officer is thus bad in law and it
      has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice - Order of
D     Consolidation Officer is declared as null and void on grounds
      of patent illegality and acting with legal malice - Appellant
      is entitled to. be recorded in the revenue records as half share
      owner of the land in dispute - Competent authority is directed
      to record the name of appellant in revenue records as half
 E    share owner of the land in dispute.
         The appellant filed a suit for possession of the suit
    property and prayed for quashing of order dated
    14.2.1970 passed by the Consolidation Officer, on the
    ground that defendant no. 1 in connivance with
 F defendant no. 2, taking benefit of the appellant's illiteracy,
    recorded their names over the suit land and the
    Consolidation Officer rejected his objection holding that
    it was not pressed and directed that existing entries
    would continue. The plaintiff alleged that the order of
 G the Consolidation Officer was obtained by playing fraud
    on him. The trial court held that the appellant was the
   ·son of'VN', namely the brother of the father of defendant
    no. 1, but dismissed the suit holding the same, inter alia,
    barred bys. 331 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land
 H Reforms Act, 1950 as also s. 49 of the UP Consolidation
           AMAR NATH v. KEWLADEVI &ANR.                    679


of Holdings Act 1953 as well as by limitation. However, · A
the first appellate court decreed the suit. In the second
appeal filed by the defendants-respondents the High
Court set aside the judgment ·and decree of the first
appellate court.
      In the instant appeal filed by the plaintiff, the B
questions for consideration before the court were as
follows:
     1.   Whether the High Court was correct in deciding
          the appeal without formulating substantial C
          questions of law and whether the matter must
          be remitted back to the High Court?_
     2.   Whether the suit of the appellant was barred
          by s.49 of the UP Consolidation of Land
          Holdings Act and s.331 of the UP Zamindari 0
          Abolition and Land Reforms Act?
     3.   Whether the order dated 14.02.1970 passed by
          the Consolidation Officer must be declared
          illegal and void?
     4.   What order/decree to be passed?                   E
     Allowing the appeal, the court
     HELD : Question no.1:
     1.1 The High Court has committed a grave error in
procedure and failed to discharge its duty by not framing F
substantial question of law and in setting aside the
judgment and decree of the first appellate court. The
finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court on
the contentious issues was based on re-appreciation of
the pleadings and evidence on record and careful G
perusal of the law. In the interest of justice, the judgment
and decree of the High Court has to be set aside as it
has omitted to frame substantial questions of law and
answer the same and thus has failed to discharge its
duty u/s 100, CPC. [Para 8][688-A-D]                         H
680         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A          Surat Singh v. Hukam Singh Negi (2010) 15 SCC
           525 and Hardeep Kaur v. Malkiat Kaur 2012 (2)
           SCR 478 : (2012)4 SCC 344 - relied on.
           1.2 In the instant case, it is not necessary to remit
      the matter back to the High Court for consideration
B     afresh. It is sufficient to set aside the impugned judgment
      and uphold the well-reasoned judgment. of the first
      appellate court, which observed that the trial court, on
      the basis of the evidence on record, held that it was
      proved that the appellant was the son of the grandson
C     of respondent's paternal grandfather. In such a fact
      situation, automatically the court should have given half
      the portion of the suit land to the appellant along with
      defendant no.1. Instead the trial court as well as the
      Consolidation Officer have passed judgments that are
D     bad in law as they have failed to see that the right of the
      appellant cannot simply·be extinguished because of the
      defendants' plea that he has entered into a compromise.
      The defendants have taken undue advantage of the
      appellant's illiteracy and the Consolidation Officer has
E     abdicated his role by allowing the objection of the
      appellant to be withdrawn and by not examining whether
      or not the appellant was indeed the son of defendant's
      grandfather. It is highly likely that fraud was committed
      on appellant by the defendants as well as the
F     Consolidation Officer by not recording his name in the
      revenue records and the defendants have taken undue
      a(lvantage of his illiteracy so that the whole property
      goes to them. The order of the Consolidation Officer is
      thus void and illegal and it has resulted in a grave
G     miscarriage of justice. The trial court erred in not
      quashing the order of the Consolidation Officer.
      [Para 9] [688-F-G; 689-A-E]


H
           AMAR NATH v. KEWLADEVI &ANR.                        681


     Question no.2:                                             A
      2.1 The suit was not barred u/s 331 of the UP
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, as the
authorities under the said Act have no jurisdiction to deal
with the subject matter. The suit is also not barred u/s 49
of the UP Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, as it is a        B
suit for possession of the suit schedule property based
on title involving the question of 'sonship', which is not
within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the said
Act. [Para 10)[690-B-E]
     Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh & Ors. (1974) 1
                                                                c
     sec 418 - referred to.
     Questions nos.3 and 4:
     3.1 The order of the Consolidation Officer dated
14.2.1970 was obtained on the basis of fraud by the D
defendants. The Consolidation Officer has also
committed fraud on the appellant, by accepting
withdrawal of his objection and not going into the issue
of whether he is the rightful heir,'with a right in half-share .
of the suit property. The Consolidation Officer has not E
discharged his duties properly and without examining
the alleged statement made on behalf of the appellant
and verifying the correctness of the same has accepted
the withdrawal of his objection and has passed the order
without examining the rights of the parties with reference F
to the documents in relation to the suit schedule
property. He has permitted a gross miscarriage of.justice
to continue by recording of the name of defendant no.1
as the only rightful heir to the land in dispute. [Para 11]
[690-G-H; 691-A-C]                                               G
     S Partap Singh v. State of Punjab 1964
     SCR 733 : AIR 1964 SC 72 - relied on
    3.2 This Court, therefore, declares the order of the
Consolidation Officer to be null and void on grounds of         H    }
682         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 14 S.C.R.


A patent illegality and legal malice. The Court further holds
  that the appellant is entitled to be recorded in the revenue
  records by the competent authorities as half share owner
  of the land in dispute arid that he has a right to half the
  share in the property and crops, as it being the ancestral
B property of his father. The competent authority is
  directed to record the name of the appellant in the
  revenue records as half share owner of the land in
  dispute. The impugned judgment and decree of the High
  Court is set aside and the judgment of the first appellate
c court is upheld and restored. [Para 9, 12 and 13]
  [691-E-F; 692-A-D]
           Madan Mohan Mishra v. Chandrika Pandey (Dead) by
           LRs 2009 (2) SCR 590 : (2009) 3 SCC 720; Madan
           Mohan Singh & Ors. v. Rajni Kant & Anr. 2010
D          (10) SCR 30 : (2010) 9 SCC 209 - cited.
                      CASE LAW REFERENCE
      2009 (2) SCR 590           cited                 para 6
      2010 (10) SCR 30           cited                 para 6
E (201 O) 15 sec 525             relied on             para 8
      2012 (2) SCR 478           relied on             para 8
      (1974) 1 sec 418           referred to           para 10
      1964 SCR 733               relied on             para· 11
 F         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
      1918 of 2007.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2005 of the
      High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No.
      283 of 2005.
 G
           S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ufiabal Pandey, Rameshwar Prasad
      Goyal, Advs.for the Appellant.
           R. D. Upadhyay,Adv., for the Respondents.

 H
           AMAR NATH v. KEWLADEVI &ANR.                           683


     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                   A
     V. GO PALA GOWDA J.
       1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 08.04.2005 of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh
at Allahabad wherein the High Court allowed the appeal filed
                                                                  8
by the respondents and set aside the order passed by the
Additional District Judge and upheld the findings of the trial
court. The appellant has appealed against the impugned
judgment urging various legal and factual contentions, the main
contention being that the High Court has allowed the appeal
without framing substantial question/questions of law although    C
it is mandatory as per Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC').
     2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are stated
hereunder:                                                     D
      The appellant, Amar Nath is the plaintiff whose father,
Vaij Nath is the brother of Ram Nath and Ram Dev. The
respondent no.1 - the defendant is the only daughter of Ram
Nath. Ram Dev, the third brother died without issue. The
appellant, Amar Nath filed a suit for possession of the suit E
schedule property and prayed for quashing of order dated
14.02.1970 passed by the Consolidation Officer during the
Consolidation proceedings on the ground that defendant no.1
in connivance with defendant no.2, taking benefit of the
appellant's mental weakness and illiteracy have recorded their F
name ov_er the land in dispute, and the Consolidation Officer
rejected the appellant's objection holding that it was not
pressed and directed that existing entries shall continue. He
prayed for quashing the order of the Consolidation Officer on
the ground that fraud was played on him and he had no G
knowledge of the -order. The trial court on the basis of the
pleadings has framed 12 issues and after trial, it has decided
issue nos. 1 and 12 against the appellant, holding that the
appellant is not co-bhumidhar over the land in dispute and
                                                                  H
684       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 14 S.C.R.


A further held that the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court
  also held that the suit is barred by Section 331 of the UP
  ZamindariAbolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and he should
  instead file a suit before the Revenue Court for his bhumidhar
  right over the disputed land and for the relief of possession
8 also of the suit schedule property. It was further held that the
  suit is barred by Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of
  Holdings Act, 1953 as well as by limitation. The trial court also
  held that the suit is barred by the principle of estoppel as well
  as under Sections 34 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act as the
C defendant has got exclusive possession over the land in
  dispute. Although the trial court held that the appellant had
  cause of action to file the suit, it went on to hold that as the
  appellant did not press the objection fi.led by him in the
  consolidation proceedings and he entered into a compromise
o with the defendant, handing over his share in favour of the
  defendant which is not based on fraud, coercion or undue
  pressure and no allegation of the same has been mentioned
  in the suit, and no evidence  ' either was placed on record.
  Hence, the trial court held that the appellant is not entitled for
E the relief as prayed for in the suit, and thereby dismissed the
  suit with costs. Importantly, even though the suit was dismissed
  the trial court demolished the contention of the defendants
  thatAmar Nath, the appellant was not Vaij Nath's son. The trial
  court held that Amar Nath was indeed the son of Vaij Nath,
F relying on the deposition of witnesses examined on behalf of
  the appellant and on documentary evidence produced on his
  behalf i.e. the copy of electoral register of 1991 and ration
  card in which it is recorded that he is Amar Nath s/o Vaij Nath.
  The trial court took into account the. admission of DW-1,
G Shyama Chand Tiwari, the husband of defendant no.1 who
  has recorded his statement on oath in th~ court wherein he
  has himself stated that 'Amar Nath s/o Vaij Nath had himself
  withdrawn his case from the consolidation proceedings'.
       3. The appellant appealed against the judgment and
H decree of the trial court by filing a civil appeal under Secti.on
           AMAR NATHv. KEWLADEVI &ANR.                          685
               [V. GOPALAGOWDAJ.]

96 of the CPC in the first appellate court, through the Court of A
the Additional District Judge. The first ~ppellate court held vide
judgmentand decree dated 01.02.2005 that the appellant had
only to prove that he is son of Vaij Nath who was the son of
Gaya and he is their legal heir and the trial court, instead of
examining important and reliable evidence of the witnesses B
has rather examined different interested persons, ignoring the
records available before it which constituted complete
evidence in favour of the appellant. If evidence were thatAmar
Nath was son of Vaij Nath then automatically the court should
have given half portion of the land in dispute to the appellant C
along with defendant Kewla Devi. The appeal was allowed as
the conclusion arrived at by the trial court were not supported ·
by the pleadings and evidence available on record.
       4. The respondents-defendants filed the second appeal
before the High Court against the judgment and decree of the D
first appellate court. It was contended by the respondents that
the disputed land was inherited by respondent No.1 from her
father during consolidation proceedings in the year 1969-1970
 and some opponent of theirs set up the appellant to file an
 objection which was later on withdrawn by him by moving an E
 applicatien dated 14.02.1970. It was alleged that the appellant
 does not belong to the family of the respondents and he is not
the heir of Gaya. The appellant alleged that fraud was
 committed on him and the order dated 14.02.1970 passed by
the Consolidation Officer was fraudulent and liable to be set F
 aside. He pleaded that he was defrauded by the respondents
and they made him to·believe that they are managing the
disputed land. The High Court held that as per Order 6 Rule 4
of the CPC, when fraud, breach of trust etc. are alleged,
particulars of the same must be stated in the pleading and in G
the present case, no particulars of fraud were made as part of
the pleading and in the absence of such pleading no evidence
can be looked into and a finding that the order has been
fraudulently procured cannot be given. As a result, the second
                                                                H
686             SUPREME COURT.REPORTS               [2014] 14 S.C.R.


A     appeal of the respondents was allowed and the High Court
      set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court.
      Hence, this civil appeal.
              5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that
      the appellant pleaded about the fraud played and further
B     clarified it in the evidence led by him and that he was assured
      by the husband of respondent No.1 that his share will be
      recorded in his name and that he committed fraud upon him.
      He further stated that the appellant had no knowledge about
      the consolidation order dated 14.02.1970 and that he had not
·C    filed any application in the Consolidation Court. He contended
      that the suit was not barred under Section 49 of the UP
      Consolidation of Land Holdings Act and also Section 331 of
      the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as
      by filing the present suit, the appellant prayed for quashing of
D     the order dated 14.02.1970 which, he contended, was obtained
      by fraud and the power to do this lies only with the civil court.
      Further, the trial court has committed a grave error by not
      decreeing the suit by giving half the portion of the disputed
      property to the appellant when the trial court itself had held in
 E    para 18 of its judgment that the appellant was the son of Vaij
      Nath and the legal heir of Gaya. The appellant then contended
      that the High Court has committed a serious error of procedure
      by allowing the second appeal without framing any substantial
      question of law as per requirement of Section 100 of the CPC.
 F      6. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted
  that the High Court has dealt with the appeal without framing
  substantial question of law which is mandated as per Section
  100 of the CPC. Further, the High Court has not gone into the
  question whether the suit was barred by Section 49 of the UP
G Consolidation of Land Holdings Act and Section 331 of the
  UP ZamindariAbolition and Land Reforms Act. The learned
  counsel relied on the case of Madan Mohan Mishra v.
  Chandrika Pandey (Dead) by LRs 1 to contend that this
H     1
          (2009) 3   sec no
                AMAR NATH v. KEWLADEVI &ANR.                         687
                    [V. GOPALAGOWDAJ.]

Court has clearly held that the jurisdiction of a civil court is A
barred in respect of agricultural land and in Madan Mohan
Singh & Ors. v. Rajni Kant & Anr. 2, it was held that the
statutory authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Act
enjoy the powers of a civil court as well as a revenue court as
all matters pending before the civil court abate once notification B
of initiation of proceedings is issued under the Act. He stated
that the authorities under the Consolidation Act have been
conferred the powers of a civil court to adjudicate upon any
matter of title or right to inherit property. Therefore, it was
submitted that the matter be remitted to the High Court for          c
formulating substantial question of law and then decide the
second appeal on its merits or this Court may be pleased'to
consider the effect of Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of
Land Holdings Act and Section .331 of the UP Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act on merits.                          D
      7. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties .
•The following questions arise before us:
         a.   Whether the High Court was correct in deciding the
              appeal without formulating substantial questions of
              law and whether the matter must be remitted back       E
              to the High Court?
         b.   Whether the suit of the appellant was barred by
              Section 49 of the (Jp Consolidation of Land Holdings
              Act and Section 331 of the UPZamindariAbolition        F
              and Land Reforms Act?
         c.   Whether the order passed by the _Consolidation
              Officer dated 14.02.1970 must be declared illegal
              and void?
         d.   What order/decree to be passed?                        G
      We will deal with each of these issues separately along
with supplementary issues that would arise out of them.

2
    (201 OJ g sec 209
                                                                     H
688          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014f14 S.C.R.


A           8. Answer to point no.1:
             In our considered viewpoint, the High Court has
      committed a grave error in procedure by not framing substantial
      question of law and setting aside the judgment and decree of
      the first appellate court. The finding of fact recorded by the
B     first appellate court on the contentious issues was based on
      re-appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record and
      careful perusal of the law and the High Court has failed to
      discharge its duty by not framing the mandatory substantial
      questions of law in order.to examine the correctness of the
C     judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. In
      th~ interest of justice, the judgment and decree of the High
      Court has to be set aside as it has omitted to frame substantial
      questions of law and answer the same and thus has failed to
      discharge its duty under S.100 of the CPC. The learned counsel
D     for the respondent hasrelied on the cases of Surat Singh v.
      Hukam Singh Negi3 and Hardeep Kaur v. Malkiat Kaur' in
      order to establish that the High Court is bound to formulate •
      substantial questions of law at the initial stage itself if it has to
      satisfy itself that the matter deserves to be admitted and the
E     second appeal to be heard and decided on such questions
      and further even at the time of hearing of the second appeal, it
      is open to the High Court to reformulate substantial questions
      of law. In the judgments relied upor.i, the impugned judgments
      of the High Court were set aside and the matter was remitted
F     to the High Court for consideration afresh after formulation of
      the substantial questions of law. The learned counsel forthe
      respondents has prayed for the same.
        9. We do not think it necessary to remit the matter back
  to the High Court for fresh consideration. We feel it is sufficient
G to set aside the impugned judgment and uphold the well-
  reasoned judgment of the first appellate court where it was
  held that the very fact that the trial court held that it was proved

  '(201 OJ 15 sec 525
H '(2012) 4 sec 344
            AMAR NATH v. KEWLADEVI &ANR.                           689
                [V. GOPALAGOWDAJ.]

 thatAmar Nath was s/o Vaij Nath based on the evidence on A
 record, then automatically the court should have given half the
 portion of the disputed land to the appellant along with
 defendant no.1, Kewla Devi. Instead, the trial court as well as
 the Consolidation Officer have passed judgments that are bad
 in law as they have failed to see that the right of the appellant B
 cannot simply be extinguished because of the defendants'
 plea that he has entered into a compromise. The defendants
 have taken U!)_QUe advantage of the appellant's illiteracy and
 the Consolidation Officer has abdicated his role by allowing
 the objection of the appellant to be withdrawn and by not          c
 examining whether or not the appellant was indeed the S/o
 Vaij Nath who was the S/o Ga ya. The order of the Consolidation
 Officer is thus bad in law and it has resulted in a grave
  miscarriage of justice. We think it fit to restore the judgment
 and decree passed by the first appellate court wherein the D
 court declared that the appel)ant, Amar Nath is S/o Vaij Nath
 who was son of Gaya thereby holding that the order passed
  by the Consolidation Officer is void and illegal and the trial
  court was wrong in not quashing the order of the Consolidation
  Officer and that nowhere in the revenue record was his name E
  recorded and fraud was committed against him as defendant
  no.1, Kewla Devi has got her name recorded in each and every ·
  revenue record. The judgment of the first appellate court is
  legal and valid as it is fair and keeping with the principles of
  justice. The trial court in its answer to issue nos. 1 and 10 has· F
  rightly held that Amar Nath is S/o Vaij Nath who was
  undisputedly the son of Gaya and if that fact was proved, then
·we see no reason why it was not directed for the appellant's
  name to be recorded in the revenue records. The right of the
  appellant over the suit schedule property cannot be G
 extinguished simply because objection was withdrawn, over
 which there is a cloud of doubt anyway and also, the appellant
  has pleaded that he had no idea about the order of the
  Consolidation Officer in the first place. We find it highly likely
                                                                    H
690          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2014] 14 S.C.R.


A     that fraud was committed .on him by the defendants as well as
      the Consolidation Officer by not recording his name in the
      revenue records as the defendants.have taken undue
      advantage of his illiteracy so that the whole property goes to
      the defendants.
B           10.Answertopointno.2:
        The question whether the original suit of the appellant
  was barred under Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Land
  Holdings Act and Section 331 of the UP Zamin9ari Abolition
C and Land Reforms Act, we answer in the negative. The suit
  was not barred under the aforesaid provisions as the UP
  ZamindariAbolition. and Land Reforms Act has no jurisdiction
  to deal with the subject matter. On the issue of Section 49 of
  the UP Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, we hold that the
  present case is not barred under this section as it is a suit for
D possession of the suit schedule property based on title, which
  is not within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the
  aforesaid Act. In the case of Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh
  & Ors. 5, it was observed by this Court that Section 49 does
  not bar jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of title to the land
E stating that,
            "9 .... The result is.that the plea of bar of the civil courts'
            jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate upon the title to
            the land or the sonship of the plaintiff has no substance .... "
 F          Therefore, since the present case too involves a question
      of'sonship'ofthe plaintiff who is the appellant herein, there is
      no bar to the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 49 of the
      aforesaid Act, in deciding the question of the appellant's right ·
      to the land he has inherited from his. father.                   ·
G           11. Answer to point nos.3 & 4:
              The order of the Consolidation Officer dated 14.2.1970
       was obt.ained on the basis of fraud by the defendants. We feel
     ··that the Consolidation Officer has also committed fraud on the
      5
H      (1974).1 SCC418
              AMAR NATH v. KEWLADEVI &ANR.                            691
                  [V. GOPALAGOWDAJ.]

appellant, by accepting withdrawal of his objection and not A
going into the.issue of whether he is the s/o Vaij Nath or not,
and therefore whether he is the rightful heir, with a right in half-
share of the disputed property.
      The Consolidation Officer has not discharged his duties
properly and keeping with law has not given details of the            B
objection or why the objection was not pressed by the appellant
in his order. He has permitted a gross miscarriage of justice
to continue by recording of the name of defendant no.1 as the
only rightful heir to the land in dispute. In the case of S. Partap
Singh v. State of Punjab 6, Ayyangar J. in his portion of the         C
judgment at para 6 has quoted Lord Denning (in the case
Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley 1956 1 All ER 341 at p.345)
stating:
        "No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be
        allowed to starid if it has been obtained by fraud."          D
      The Consolidation officer without examining the alleged
statement made on behalf of the appellant and verifying the
correctness of the same has accepted the withdrawal of his
objection and has passed the order without examining the              E
rights of the parties with reference to the documents in relation
to the suit schedule property.
       12. We therefore hereby declare the order of the
Consolidation Officer to be null and void on grounds of patent
 illegality and acting with legal malice. The appellant has F
contended that he had no idea about the Consolidation order
and was made aware of it only when he asked for his half share
of crop which the defendants refused to him, and that he was
made to sign an agreement in which he signed over his rights
to the property and that he has been taken advantage off due G
to his illiteracy. We find all this extremely murky and it was
incumbent upon the Consolidation Officer to properly enquire
into the ownership of the land before recording the defendant's
name in the revenue records. We further hold that the appellant
6
    AIR 1964 SC 72                                                    H
692         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A     -Amar Nath is entitled to be recorded in the revenue records
      by the competent authorities as half share owner of the land in
      dispute, as he has a right to half the share in the property and
      crops, as it being the ancestral property of his father - Vaij
      Nath. It has been proved by examining the evidence on record,
B     such as the election identity card, thatAmar Nath is indeed
      the s/o Vaij Nath therebyit has demolished the contention of
      the defendants that the appellant is not the s/o Vaij Nath.
         13. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that the
  appellant is the half sh.are owner of the land in question and
C further uphold his right to the ancestral property. We direct the
  competent authority to record the name of the appellant-Amar
  Nath in the revenue records as half share owner of the land in
  dispute. Thus, we hereby set aside the impugned judgment
  and decree of the High Court and uphold the judgment of the
D first appellate court. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid
  terms with no order as to costs.


      Rajendra Prasad                                   Appeal allowed.