E-Paper
Supreme Court brings curtain down on 1928 Uttar Pradesh property dispute
The three brothers, who were sons of one Gajadhar Misra were alive when the decree of partition was passed in the year 1929
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday brought curtains down on nearly a century old pre-Independence litigation initiated in 1928 for partition of a property in Uttar Pradesh between three brothers by directing that the share of one of the brothers who died issueless would be equally distributed among the heirs of the remaining two brothers.
The three brothers, who were sons of one Gajadhar Misra were alive when the decree of partition was passed in the year 1929. The decree came on a suit filed by the son of one of the brothers Ramesar. As per the decree, each brother was given a one-third share in the property of Gajadhar Misra.
After the partition decree, Ramesar died and so did his brother Sita Ram. Since Sita Ram died issueless, a claim was raised upon his property by the legal heirs of Ramesar and the other brother Jagesar. The son of Ramesar, who had initiated the 1928 litigation, filed a subsequent suit in 1944 to set aside the earlier partition decree on the ground that it was “collusive” and hence did not bind them but that did not work. This suit was dismissed by the civil court in January 1946.
In 1952, mutation in the revenue records took place and the warring families of the two brothers – Jagesar and Ramesar filed objections under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 seeking claim to the one-third share of property decreed in 1929 in the name of Sita Ram, the one among the three brothers who died issueless.
The Consolidation officer decided in May 1973 that Sita Ram’s share would go to the children of Jageswar making them two-third owner in their ancestral property. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision petition filed by the branch of Ramesar. They alleged that the rival side (children of Jagesar) had acquired one-third share even in a self-acquired property which was not permissible.
The revisional authority overturned the May 1973 order and directed the heirs of the two brothers Ramesar and Jagesar to be entitled to equal share of Sita Ram’s property. This order was later upheld by the Allahabad high court in its order of September 11, 2009 that was under challenge before the apex court.
Deciding the dispute, a bench of justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian upheld the high court order. The bench opened the judgment by saying, “Since the litigation in which the parties are involved, is nearly a century old, it may be necessary to begin the narration with a genealogy tree of the family.”
The fact that there was no proof about the date when Sita Ram and Ramesar died weighed with the bench. Justice Ramasubramanian, writing the judgment for the bench said, “Jagesar’s branch would be entitled to take Sita Ram’s one-third share only if it is established that Ramesar had predeceased Sita Ram.” This issue was not relevant during the time of the partition suit in 1929 as the three brothers were alive. Thus, the top court found no error in the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
The Court held, “Finding that there was no evidence regarding the dates of death, the Deputy Director of Consolidation found it equitable to distribute Sita Ram’s one-third share equally between the branches of Ramesar and Jagesar,” thus bringing the 94-year-old dispute to a close.
