HIGH COURT OF UTTARANKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 79/2005 Durga Dutt Brijwasi …..Appellant Vs. State of U.P. (now State of Uttaranchal) through Collector and others ….Respondents 10.4.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Shri Sudhir Singh, counsel for the appellant, Shri B.P.S. Mer and Shri R.C. Arya, counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present first appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nainital in civil suit no. 214/1996. 3. Briefly stated a suit was filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of Gift Deed dated 23.12.1995 executed by the defendant no. 8 Mahesh Chandra and for grant of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- plus cost in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of demolition of house of the appellant situated on plot no. 820 Ba. According to the plaintiff, he is permanent resident of Gram Sabha Bijroli, tehsil district Nainital and he is the joint bhumidhar with the defendant 2 nos. 5 to 12 with regard to plot no. 820 Ba area 6 muthi, plot no. 819 area 5 muthi of khata-khatauni no. 22. There was a house in khet no. 820 Ba and ‘bara’ in khet no. 819 and the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue records. Since, the plaintiff was posted at Haldwani and he was not in immediate need of his aforesaid house, the said house was given for residence of Panchayat Sachiv. In the year 1985- 86 after the construction of panchayat bhavan, the plaintiff started using the said house for his own purposes. In paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the plaint, it has been stated as under:- “6- ;g fd pwafd oknh orZeku esa vius ifjokj ds lkFk gY}kuh jgrk gS vkSj dsoy xfeZ;ksa esa gh xzke esa vkrk gS A izfroknh la[;k 3 Jh vejukFk lkg }kjk oknh dh vuqifLFkfr dk vuqfpr ykHk mBkdj oknh dks vuqfpr gkfu igqapkus ,oa Lo;a vuqfpr ykHk vftZr djus ds mn~ns’; ls izfroknh la[;k 2 ds le{k vlR;] Hkzked ,oa vuxZy rF; j[kdj [ksr la[;k 820 c esa cus oknh ds Hkou dks rksM+dj mlesa izkbZejh ikB’kkyk ukSy ds cus Hkou dk fuekZ.k dk;Z izkjaHk dj fn;k x;k] tc oknh dks izfroknh la[;k 2 ,oa 3 }kjk vius Hkou dks rksM+dj mlesa u;s fo|ky; Hkou dk fuekZ.k djus dh tkudkjh gqbZ rks oknh us bl laca/k esa izfroknh la0 2 ls lEidZ dj] fo|ky; ds fuekZ.k dk;Z dks jksdus dk vuqjks/k fd;k] ftl ij oknh dks Kkr gqvk fd izfroknh la[;k 3 us xzke lHkkifr ds :Ik esa vius vf/kdkjksa dk nq:Ik;ksx dj ,oa izfroknh la[;k 8 egs’k pUnz ,oa rRdkyhu ftyk csfld f’k{kk vf/kdkjh ds lkFk nqjfHklaf/k dj [ksr la[;k 819 ,oa 820 Ck rFkk [ksr Lka[;k 814 tks m0 iz0 ljdkj dh tehu gS] xzke fctjkSyh rglhy o ftyk uSuhrky ds laca/k 3 esa ,d nkuukek izfroknh la[;k 8 egs’kpUnz ls f’k{kk foHkkx m0 iz0 ljdkj }kjk ftyk csfld f’k{kk vf/kdkjh uSuhrky ds Ik{k esa fu"ikfnr djok fy;k gS] tcfd Jh egs’kpUnz dks mDr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa dksbZ nkuukek fu"ikfnr djus dk dkuwuh vf/kdkj ugha Fkk] D;ksafd vkilh ?kj caVokjs esa [ksr la[;k 819 ,oa 820 c oknh ds fgLls o dCts esa vk;s Fks rFkk Jh egs’kpUnz vius fgLls dh Hkwfe igys gh csp pqds Fks rFkk [ksr la[;k 814 m0 iz0 ljdkj dh Hkwfe gS A bl izdkj izfroknh la[;k 8] egs’kpUnz }kjk izfroknh la[;k 8 ds Ik{k esa dfFkr nkuukes loZFkk voS/k ,oa izHkko’kwU; gS A 7- ;g fd rRdkyhu ftyk csfld f’k{kk vf/kdkjh uSuhrky }kjk bl ckr dks tkurs gq;s fd Jh egs’kpUnz dks muds Ik{k esa dksbZ nkuukek fu"ikfnr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk vkSj muds }kjk dfFkr c;ukek fu"ikfnr djus ls iwoZ vU; lg Lokfe;ksa dh dksbZ vuqefr ugha yh xbZ Fkh] mDr Hkwfe dk nkuukek vius }kjk f’k{kk foHkkx m0 iz0 ds uke ij djok fy;k ,oa [ksr la[;k 820 c esa cus edku dks rksM+dj mlesa u;k fo|ky; Hkou cukus dh vuqefr iznku dj nh xbZ A” 4. The plaintiff has prayed to the following effect:- ßvr% oknh fuEufyf[kr vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS% ¼v½ ;g fd izfroknhx.k 1 yxk;r 4 }kjk [ksr la[;k 820 c esa cus Hkou dks /oLr dj nsus ds QyLo:Ik oknh dks gqbZ {kfriwfrZ ds :Ik esa oknh ds Ik{k esa :Ik;k 25]000@& :Ik;s dh fMdzh e; C;kt okn vof/k esa rFkk Hkqxrku rd oknh ds Ik{k esa rFkk izfroknhx.k 1 yxk;r 4 ds fo:) ikfjr dh tk; A 4 ¼c½ ;g fd fMdzh fujLrhdj.k nkuukek fnukad 23-12- 95 tks fd izfroknh la[;k 8 us izfroknh la[;k 2 ds Ik{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;k gS vkSj ftldh jftLVªh lc jftLVªkj uSuhrky ds dk;kZy; esa iqLrd la[;k 1 ds [k.M 130 ds i`"B 1 ls 4 rd dzekad la[;k 728 ij gqbZ gS] dks oknh ds Ik{k eas o izfroknh la[;k 1 yxk;r 4 o 8 ds fo:) ikfjr dh tk; A ¼l½ ;g fd bl okn ds okn ,oa vU; vuqrks"k tks fd U;k;ky; mfpr o U;k; laxr le>sa] oknh ds Ik{k esa o izfroknhx.k 1 yxk;r 4 o izfroknh la[;k 8 ds fo:) vkKIr dh tk; A 5. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 have filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. It has been submitted that the plaintiff was never in possession of the house in dispute. Khet nos. 820 ba and 814 belong to U.P. Government. In the gift deed executed by the defendant no. 8, there was no mention that house in question was in existence. The school building has been constructed in khet nos. 814 and 821. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 have wrongly been impleaded as party in the suit. 6. The defendant no. 3 has filed the written statement and has reiterated the averments made by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement. 7. The defendant no. 8 has filed the written statement denying the plaint averments and has corroborated the averments made in the written statement by the defendant 5 nos. 1 and 2. However, in paragraph 15 of the written statement, it has been stated as under:- “15- fd nkok in la- 15 Lohdkj ugha gS A tokcnsfgUnk izfroknh us o"kksZa iwoZ nh x;h xzke lHkk dks nkuukes }kjk vjkth dks fof/kor nku dj mldh dkuwuu iqf"V dh gS rkfd Hkfo"; esa dksbZ fookn bl laca/k esa mRiUu u gks lds A pwWafd [ksr ua0 820 c esa iapk;r ?kj VwV pqdk Fkk blfy, nkui= esa mldk mYys[k djuk vko’;d ugha Fkk A [ksr ua0 814 nkunkrk izfroknh dh eqn~nfr dCts dkLr dh Fkh vkSj fo|ky; gsrq de ls de nks ukyh tehu dh t:jr Fkh blfy, nku nkrk izfroknh us vius gd dh nks ukyh tehu nku esa iznku dh tks ek= ,d vkSipkfjdrk Fkh AÞ 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court has framed the following issues:- “1- D;k oknh] izfroknhx.k ls eq0 25]000@&:Ik;s Hkwfe la0 820 c esa cus Hkou dks /oLr djus ds laca/k esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- D;k izfroknh la0 8 }kjk izfroknh ua0 2 ds Ik{k esa fd;k x;k nku Ik= 'kwU; o fu"izHkkoh gS\ ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\ 3- D;k iz’uxr Hkwfe o"kZ 1952 ls xzke lHkk dh lEifRr gS vkSj xkze lHkk ds dCts esa gS vkSj D;k mlh Hkwfe ij Hkou fuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS \ ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\ 4- D;k oknh dk okn /kkjk 331 ;w-ih-tSM-,- ,.M ,y- vkj- ,DV ls ckf/kr gS\ 5- D;k oknh dk okn ikfj.kkfed vuqrks"k u ekWaxs tkus ds dkj.k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS\ 6- oknh dk vuqrks"k ;fn dksbZ gks \ 6 9. While deciding issue no. 1 as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for getting a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of demolition of his house at plot no. 820 Ba, the trial court has come to the conclusion that there was no house on the disputed property. The finding recorded by the trial court is quoted below:- “bl izdkj oknh us Hkh vius c;kuksa esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izfroknh ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd }kjk tks fo|ky; dk fuekZ.k djk;k x;k og oknh ds [ksr ua0 819 ,oa 820 c esa u gksdj [ksr ua- 814 ,oa 821 esa djk;k x;k gS ftlls fd oknh dk dksbZ rkYyqd ;k okLrk ugha gS A ;g RkF; lgh gS fd igys mDr fo|ky; dk [ksr ua- 819 ,oa 820 c esa djk;k tkuk Fkk ysfdu oknh }kjk vkifRr fd;s tkus ij fo|ky; dk fuekZ.k oknh ds mijksDr [ksrksa esa ugha djk;k x;k A izfroknh ua0 1 yxk;r 4 }kjk oknh ds mijksDr [ksrksa esa dksbZ uqdlku Hkh ugha igqWapk;k x;k A fookfnr lEifRr esa oknh dk dksbZ edku ugha Fkk] bl fy, izfroknhx.k }kjk mldks rksM+us dk dksbZ iz’u mRiUu ugha gksrk A fookfnr [ksr esa tks Hkou Fkk og iqjkuk iapk;r ?kj Fkk mlh th.kZ&{kh.kZ iapk;r ?kj ds Hkou dks fo|ky; ds fuekZ.k ds fy, rksM+k x;k Fkk A vr% mijksDr foospuk ls U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWaprk gS fd oknh dk fookfnr lEifRr esa dksbZ edku ugha Fkk A ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa oknh] izfroknhx.k ls dksbZ {kfriwfrZ ikus dk gdnkj ugha gS A” 10. While deciding the issue no. 2 with regard to genuineness of gift deed executed by the defendant no. 8 in favour of defendant no. 2, the trial court has recorded the 7 finding that the disputed property was the joint property of the defendant no. 8 and other joint-bhumidhars and, therefore, the defendant no. 8 had no right to execute the gift deed in favour of the defendant no. 2 without the consent of the other joint-bhumidhars of the property in dispute. The trial court has recorded the finding as under:- “ pWwafd ;g fookfnr lEifRr oknh o vU; lg&[kkrsnkjksa dh Fkh blfy, izfroknh egs’k pUnz dks fcuk lg&[kkrsnkjksa dh vuqefr ds vdsys bl Hkwfe dks f’k{kk foHkkx dks nku djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk A bl fy;s egs’k pUnz us tks mijksDr nku ukek izfroknh f’k{kk foHkkx ds gd esa fn0 23-12-95 dks fd;k og fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS A” 12. While deciding issue no. 3 as to whether the property in dispute belong to Gram Sabha and the property in dispute is in possession of the Gram Sabha, the trial court has recorded the finding that since the defendant no. 8 has executed the gift deed in favour of the Department of Education, therefore, the Department of Education is in possession over the property in dispute. 13. On the basis of the aforesaid, the trial court has partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for cancellation of the gift deed dated 23.12.1995. 14. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff has filed the present first appeal. 15. The main grievance of the appellant is that the trial court has erred in considering the fact that there was 8 Panchayat Bhawan in village Naul only and no Panchayat Bhawan was in village Bijroli. It has been submitted that under the Gram Sabha Naul, there were three villages, namely, Naul, Bijroli and Sahkhola. The disputed plot no. 820 Ba was situated in village Bijroli and the house of the plaintiff-appellant was being used as Panchayat Bhawan as there was no Panchayat Bhawan in village Bijroli and the same was demolished on the garb of the alleged gift deed. 16. Counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards the statement of D.W.2 Chandan Singh Adhikari, to the following effect:- “fookfnr lEifRr esa iapk;r ?kj dkQh le; iwoZ ls cuk Fkk A esjs dk;Zdky esa xkze ukSy esa nwljk dksbZ iapk;r ?kj ugha cuk Fkk A mlds ckn dh tkudkjh eq>s ugha gS A fctjkSyh esa dksbZ iapk;r ?kj dh tkudkjh eq>s ugha gS A lu~ 1985 esa rksd fctjksyh esa dksbZ iapk;r ?kj cuk ;k ugha eq>s bldh tkudkjh ugha gS A” 17. Aforesaid deposition of the D.W.2 supports the case of the appellant that there was no Panchayat Bhawan at village Bijroli and the house in question has been demolished on the on the garb of the alleged gift deed. 18. In view of the aforesaid, I deem it a fit case to remand to the trial court for deciding as to whether any Panchayat Bhawan was constructed in village Bijroli and as to whether any of the land of the appellant of which he is a co-sharer has been taken for construction of the school in question 9 and to what extent the appellant is entitled for his share in case it is proved that the respondents have demolished the house of the plaintiff. 19. So far as finding on issue no. 2 is concerned, same is confirmed. 20. Subject to the aforesaid, appeal is allowed and remanded to the court below for deciding afresh in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J. ) 10.4.2008 Avneet