Dismissed¶23

Rahul @ Rahul Yadav and Others v. Baord of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2025WRIB/37/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

purchasers pendente lite; lis pendens; Section 52 Transfer of Property Act; mutation proceedings; Will; life estate; vested remainder; compromise; recall/restoration application; Additional Commissioner Faizabad Division; Case no.1521 of 2012-13; Board of Revenue U.P.; revision dismissed 29.08.2024; review dismissed 06.01.2025; opportunity of hearing; natural justice; subsequent purchaser; typographical error in prayer clause (27.03.1996 v 27.03.2006); writ dismissed at admission stage; WRIT-B No. 37 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Jaspreet Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed at the admission stage with liberty left to the petitioners to contest the proceedings on merits before the Court where the matter is pending post remand; costs made easy. ¶23

Rahul @ Rahul Yadav and Others Vs Baord of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner nos.1 and 2, successors of purchaser Muneshwar Prasad, were denied an opportunity of hearing, so that the order dated 05.10.2018 (affirmed by the orders dated 29.08.2024 and 06.01.2025) could not lawfully operate to their detriment. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The date 27.03.1996 in the prayer column of Anand Kumari's revision memo is a typographical error, since no order dated 27.03.1996 exists; paragraph-9 of the memo shows she sought setting aside of the orders dated 04.12.2012 and 27.03.2006. The contention that the first revisional court granted a remedy not prayed for is therefore misconceived.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Recording the undisputed factual matrix: the property belonged to Shanti Prasad, who executed a Will in favour of Beena Devi/Rekha Devi and a later Will (27.06.1995) in favour of Manorma Devi (life estate; vested remainder Anand Kumari); the compromise between Manorma Devi and Beena/Rekha Devi did not include Anand Kumari; and the Will specifically debarred Manorma Devi from transferring the property. Taking note of this, the first revisional court (order dated 05.10.2018) found Anand Kumari did not have a fair opportunity to contest, her restoration application was incorrectly rejected on 04.12.2012, and the order dated 27.03.2006 affecting the compromise was also set aside.

¶17

Key takeaways

Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are purchasers pendente lite squarely covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act: their predecessor Muneshwar Prasad purchased by sale deed dated 17.07.2013 while the first revision was pending, and Beena Devi and Rekha Devi were already contesting the proceedings.ratio¶21
Petitioner nos.1 and 2 were already represented through their predecessor-in-interest Rekha Devi and Beena Devi and, in any event, their counsel (Shyam Pratap Singh) and the counsel for petitioner nos.3 and 4 (R.S. Pandey) were both heard when the Board of Revenue passed the order dated 29.08.2024.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WRIT-B, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J.), decided 17.1.2025 - U.P. revenue mutation dispute arising from competing Wills of Shanti Prasad: an earlier Will in favour of Beena Devi and Rekha Devi (petitioner nos.3-4) and a later Will dated 27.06.1995 in favour of Manorma/Manorama Devi with a life estate and vested remainder to Anand Kumari (private respondent no.4). After Shanti Prasad's death (c.2001), a mutation compromise between Manorma Devi and Beena/Rekha Devi - to which Anand Kumari was not a party - was accepted (order dated 20.07.2006, elsewhere referred to as 27.03.2006); Anand Kumari's recall/restoration application was rejected (04.12.2012). Her revision (Case no.1521 of 2012-13, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division) was allowed on 05.10.2018, setting aside both orders and remanding for decision after evidence, since a life tenant could not concede rights to the detriment of the vested remainder. Pending that revision, the vendors sold the property (sale deed 17.07.2013) to Muneshwar Prasad, predecessor-in-interest of petitioner nos.1-2. The latter's revision before the Board of Revenue was dismissed (29.08.2024) and their review dismissed (06.01.2025). Held: (i) petitioner nos.1-2 are purchasers pendente lite squarely covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; they were represented through their vendors and their counsel was heard by the Board of Revenue, so the want-of-opportunity plea is fallacious and misconceived; (ii) the date '27.03.1996' in the prayer column of Anand Kumari's revision memo is a typographical error (paragraph-9 sought setting aside of the 04.12.2012 and 27.03.2006 orders), so the 'remedy not prayed for' plea fails. Finding no palpable error, the writ was dismissed at the admission stage, leaving the petitioners free to contest on merits before the court seized of the matter post remand; observations were expressly not to be treated as an expression of opinion on merits; costs made easy.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2950

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 37 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rahul @ Rahul Yadav And Others Respondent :- Baord Of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Shukla,Shyam Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinod Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of private respondent no.4 on caveat.

¶7

By means of the instant petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected affirming the order passed in revision (1521/2012-2013) decided on 05.10.2018. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a review against the order dated 29.08.2024 which has also been dismissed by means of the order dated 06.01.2025 and being aggrieved against the said orders, the instant petition has been preferred.

¶8

Briefly the facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter. The disputed property in question belongs one Sri Shanti Prasad who initially had willed his property in favour of the petitioner nos.3 and 4 namely Beena Devi and Rekha Devi. Subsequently, another Will was executed by Shanti Prasad in favour of Manorma Devi conferring a life estate on her and further provided that the vested remainder would be Anand Kumari, who is the private respondent no.4 herein.

¶9

It is stated that some time in the year, 2001 after the death of Shanti Prasad, two sets of mutation applications were filed. One was filed by Manorma Devi and the other was filed by Been Devi and Rekha Devi jointly. Since, both the contesting parties were claiming rights in the property of Shanti Prasad on the basis of two respective Wills, hence a compromise was allegedly arrived at wherein Manorma Devi is said to have conceded to the Will in favour of Beena Devi and Rekha Devi admitting to be valid and on the basis of said compromise, the Will of Beena Devi and Rekha Devi was accepted and their names came to be duly mutated.

¶10

This compromise was between Manorma Devi, on one hand and Beena Devi and Rekha Devi on the other, whereas Smt.

¶11

Anand Kumari was not made a party to the said proceedings and accordingly, being aggrieved, she moved an application for recall of the order, by which the compromise was affected as mentioned aforesaid.

¶12

Initially, the restoration application came to be rejected against which Anand Kumari preferred a revision. The revision was allowed on 05.10.2018. In the interim period while the revision was pending Smt. Beena Devi and Rekha Devi are said to have executed a sale deed in respect of the property in question on 17.07.2013 in favour of one Sri Muneshwar Prasad who is predecessor-in-interest (purchasers from Smt. Rekha and Beena) of the petitioner nos.1 and 2. The first revisional court i.e the Court of Additional Commissioner Faizabad Division in Case no.1521 of 2012-13, while allowing the revision vide order dated 05.10.2018 opined that since Anand Kumari was not a party to the compromise coupled with the fact that Manorma merely had a life estate hence she could not concede the rights to the detriment of the vested remainder and for the said reason the order dated 04.12.2012 whereby the restoration of the Anand Kumari was rejected as well as the order dated 20.07.2006 whereby compromise was accepted was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision after permitting the parties to lead evidence.

¶13

The present petitioner nos.3 and 4, being aggrieved, preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which after hearing the parties was dismissed by means of the order dated 29.08.2024 whereafter an attempt was made by the petitioners by filing a review also met the same fate.

¶14

In the aforesaid factual backdrop, Sri Virendra Shukla learned counsel for the petitioners has made submissions that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 who are the successors of Muneshwar Prasad were the bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of proceedings and they were neither heard nor an opportunity of hearing was granted to them and for the said reason, the order dated 05.10.2018 could not have been passed to the detriment of the petitioner nos.1 and 2.

¶15

It is further submitted that the first revisional court while passing the order dated 05.10.2018 committed an error in setting aside the order dated 04.12.2012 and 27.03.2006 whereas in the memo of revision preferred by Anand Kumari, she had sought setting aside of the order dated 04.12.2012 and 27.03.1996 and for the said reason, the first revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a remedy which was not prayed for and for the said reason also, the impugned order is bad.

¶16

It is further submitted that while not considering this aspect of the matter, when the petitioners preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, the same was also decided without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nos.1 and 2 who were practically the interested and affected parties as they had purchased the property in question from Smt. Beena Devi and Rekha Devi, hence hearing them was crucial. In these circumstances, practically the petitioner nos.1 and 2 have been non suited and no opportunity has been granted and this aspect was sought to be agitated in a review which also did not find favour and for all the aforesaid reasons the orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid submissions, the facts that emerge from the record and which are not disputed are that the disputed property belonged to Shanti Prasad who had executed a Will in favour of Beena Devi and Rekha Devi. It is also not disputed that Shanti Prasad had executed another Will at a much later stage i.e 27.06.1995 in favour of Manorama who was granted a life estate with Anand Kumari being the vested remainder. It is also not disputed that the alleged compromise which was arrived at between Manorma Devi and Beena Devi and Rekha Devi did not have Anand Kumari as one of the parties as it is also not disputed that by virtue of the Will executed by Shanti Prasad in favour of Manorma Devi he specifically debarred Manorma Devi from transferring the property. It is taking note of the aforesaid that the first revisional court by means of order dated 05.10.2018 found that Smt. Anand Kumari did not have a fair opportunity to contest and, therefore, her application for restoration was incorrectly rejected on 04.12.2012. In so far as, the order dated 27.03.2006, by virtue of which the compromise was affected was also set aside.

¶18

At this stage, it will be relevant to notice that in the memo of revision which has been brought on record as Annexure no.14 with the petition, it categorically indicates that Anand Kumari had sought the setting aside of order dated 04.12.2012 and 27.03.2006 as mentioned in paragraph-9 of the revision, however, it appears that in the prayer column, the date 27.03.2006 has been incorrectly mentioned as 27.03.1996. This being so and an error which appears to be typographical in nature for the reason that there is no order dated 27.03.1996, to this extent the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is absolutely misconceived to say that the first revisional court granted remedy to Anand Kumari other than what she prayed for.

¶19

In the aforesaid circumstances, as noticed above, once the order

¶20

dated 05.10.2018 had been passed by the first revisional court, and an attempt was made to challenge it by the petitioner nos.3 and 4 by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue and in the said revision, Smt. Beena Devi and Rekha Devi were also the revisionists.

¶21

Noticing the same submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 did not get an opportunity of hearing does not appear to be quite correct for the reason that admittedly the predecessor in interest of the petitioner no.1 and 2 namely Muneshwar Prasad had purchased the property vide sale deed dated 17.07.2013 and this is the period when the first revision filed by Anand Kumari before the Court of Additional Commissioner was pending. Thus, the case of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer Property Act and the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are merely purchasers pendente lite while it is not disputed that Smt. Beena Devi and Rekha Devi were already contesting the proceedings. In this context, if the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 29.08.2024 is seen, it would indicate that the counsel for the petitioner nos.1 and 2 namely Shyam Pratap Singh as well as the counsel for the petitioner nos.3 and 4 namely R.S Pandey both were heard.

¶22

This being so the averment/the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner pales into insignificance, in as much as, first they were already represented through their predecessor in interest namely Rekha Devi and Beena Devi and even otherwise, being the subsequent purchaser, their respective counsel were also heard, thus, to submit that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 did not get an opportunity to contest the proceedings on merit is absolutely fallacious and misconceived.

¶23

In the aforesaid circumstances, the review preferred by the petitioners for the aforesaid reasons also fail and this Court also does not find that there is any palpable error which may persuade this Court to entertain the petition which is, accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself leaving it open for the petitioners to contest the proceedings on merits before the Court where the matter is pending post remand.

¶24

It is made clear that any observation made by this Court may not be taken as an expression of opinion on merits on the case of either of the parties which is yet to be adjudicated before the court of first instance as per the removal order. Costs are made easy.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.1.2025/Harshita

¶26

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 06.01.2025 dismissing the petitioners' review directed against the Board of Revenue (respondent no.1) order dated 29.08.2024, by which the petitioners' revision had been rejected affirming the first revisional court's order dated 05.10.2018 in revision (1521/2012-2013).¶7
06.01.2025
Prior proceeding
The disputed property originally belonged to Shanti Prasad, who executed a Will in favour of Beena Devi and Rekha Devi (petitioner nos.3 and 4).¶17
Prior proceeding
Shanti Prasad later executed another Will dated 27.06.1995 in favour of Manorma Devi (spelt 'Manorama' in para 17), conferring a life estate on her with vested remainder to Anand Kumari (private respondent no.4).¶17
Prior proceeding
After Shanti Prasad's death (around 2001), rival mutation applications were filed by Manorma Devi and jointly by Beena Devi and Rekha Devi; a compromise was allegedly reached in which Manorma Devi conceded the validity of the Will in favour of Beena Devi and Rekha Devi, whose names came to be mutated.¶9
Prior proceeding
The compromise was accepted by order dated 20.07.2006 (the same order is referred to as dated 27.03.2006 in paras 15, 17 and 18).¶12
Prior proceeding
Anand Kumari was not made a party to the compromise proceedings and, being aggrieved, moved an application for recall of the order by which the compromise was affected.¶11
Prior proceeding
Anand Kumari's restoration/recall application was rejected by order dated 04.12.2012.¶12
Prior proceeding
While the first revision was pending, Beena Devi and Rekha Devi executed a sale deed dated 17.07.2013 in respect of the property in favour of Muneshwar Prasad, predecessor-in-interest of petitioner nos.1 and 2.¶12
Prior proceeding
Revision (Case no.1521 of 2012-13) preferred by Anand Kumari before the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, was allowed vide order dated 05.10.2018 on the reasoning that Anand Kumari was not a party to the compromise and Manorma Devi, holding merely a life estate, could not concede rights to the detriment of the vested remainder.¶12
Prior proceeding
By the order dated 05.10.2018 the restoration-rejection order dated 04.12.2012 and the compromise-acceptance order dated 20.07.2006 were set aside and the matter was remanded for decision after permitting the parties to lead evidence.¶12
Prior proceeding
Revision preferred by petitioner nos.3 and 4 before the Board of Revenue was dismissed by order dated 29.08.2024.¶13
Prior proceeding
Review filed by the petitioners against the order dated 29.08.2024 was also dismissed (order dated 06.01.2025), prompting the instant writ petition.¶7

Rahul @ Rahul Yadav and Others v. Baord of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul @ Rahul Yadav and Others v. Baord of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brahma Vs Man Singh

Pinki Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Jarrar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Jasbant Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Smt. Kumud Saxena and others vs Shri Rakesh Saxena and Anr.

Seth Radheshyam Memorial Trust, Lko. Thru. Its Trusty /Chairman Prateek Jindal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others