Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.
This is defendants' Second appeal arising out of O.S. no. 474 of 1994 which was decreed on 13.2.2002 by Additional Civil Judge, Court no.13, Bhadohi and defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over plot no.270. Against the said decree defendants filed Civil appeal no.8 of 2002 which was dismissed on 22.11.2011 by A.D.J. Court no.2 Bhadoi, Gyanpur, hence this Second appeal.
Defendants no. 2 to 4 are sons of defendant appellant no.1.
Defendants contended that the plot no.270 was carved out from old plot no.394 and 395 and old plot no. 395 along with other plots had been given to the defendant no.1 during consolidation operation, however, due to collusion of consolidation authorities plaintiff got his name entered in CH form no.23 on 28.2.1967 in respect of property in dispute and that defendant no.1 filed application for recall of the said order and consolidation officer through order dated 21.3.1980 cancelled the order dated 28.2.1967 and revision filed against the said order by the plaintiff was dismissed on 28.5.1981. It was further pleaded by the defendants that due to inadvertence the order of 21.3.1980 and 28.5.1981 were not incorporated in the revenue record.
Defendant no.1 was never tenure holder of plot no.395.
In reply to the case taken up by the defendants, plaintiff asserted that the revision which was dismissed on 28.5.1981 was filed by some Raj Kumar and not him and plaintiff was never known by the name of Raj Kumar. Plaintiff further asserted that no such order as asserted by the defendants was passed on 21.3.1980. In the plaint, plaintiff described himself only as Bhuidhar. Appellants in their appeal before lower appellate court also described plaintiff/respondent as Bhuidhar. However, in this Second appeal he has been described as Bhuidhar alias Raj Kumar. This is wonderful.
The most important thing is that for entry of the order of 1980 and 1981 in the consolidation/revenue records defendants never cared until 1996. In the year 1996 they filed some application under Rule 109 of U.P.C.H. Act. The courts below further held that from perusal of C.H. Form no.41 and 45 also it was clear that land in dispute was allotted to the plaintiff. Section 52 notification was also issued thereafter. In the revenue record since 1967 the name of plaintiff was constantly continuing. Accordingly both the courts below decided the matter in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. I do not find least error in the impugned finding. Defendants clearly forged the order of 21.3.1980.
It is the experience of the court that often unscrupulous persons forge orders of consolidation courts and ante date them to 10,15 or 20 years when original files are weeded out.
The defendants case is that in the year 1967 plaintiff in collusion with consolidation authorities got his name entered and thereupon they filed application which was allowed in 1980 and plaintiff's name was directed to be scored of. In this scenario it was imperative that defendants would have ensured entry of the said order in the relevant records. Even otherwise there was absolutely no reason for not correcting the record if the order of 1980 had infact been passed.
Accordingly, it was clear cut case of forgery, manipulation and manufacturing of non existing document/judgment on the part of the defendants appellants.
There is absolutely no error in the impugned findings. Second appeal is, therefore, dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
Order Date :- 18.5.2012 vkg