S.U.Khan - (1.)HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Original respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Smt. Chando and Sita Ram were tenure holders of plot No. 2902. They sold the said plot on 24.1.1973 to Sri N. D. Chaudhary father of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Sunil Kumar and Anil Kumar.
(2.)PETITIONER was tenure holder of plot Nos. 2863 and 2888. Through registered deed dated 2.3.1974, petitioner and Sri N. D. Chaudhary exchanged their plots. As a result of the said deed Plot No. 2902, which had been purchased by Sri N. D. Chaudhary was given to the petitioner and petitioner's plot Nos. 2863 and 2888 were given to Sri N. D. Chaudhary.
In consolidation proceedings, petitioner filed application that plot No. 2902 be recorded in his name as the same had been purchased by Sri N. D. Chaudhary and thereafter given by Sri N. D. Chaudhary to the petitioner in exchange. Sri N. D. Chaudhary filed application fully supporting the case of the petitioner. Smt. Chando raised certain objections regarding validity of the sale deed dated 24.1.1973. She also questioned the exchange before Consolidation Officer, Mathura. The matter was registered as Case No. 91/5559/714 (or case No. 1559/764) and was decided on 29.8.1980. The consolidation officer held that the sale deed executed was quite genuine and was in fact executed by Chando and Sita Ram. In respect of exchange, consolidation officer held that it was not done in accordance with Section 161 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and it was further held that as Sri N. D. Chaudhary had not filed any objection hence, name of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall continue. Against order dated 29.8.1980 Appeal No. 291/39 was filed. S.O.C. recorded a finding that the sale deed bore thumb impression of Smt. Chando and in that regard reliance was placed upon the report of handwriting expert Ashok Kashyap. His report and evidences was fully accepted by the S.O.C. S.O.C. also recorded that Smt. Chando admitted that she had received Rs. 5,000 for the land which she sold. It is also mentioned in the judgment of S.O.C. that Smt. Chando admitted that she affixed her thumb impression in the office of Sub-Registrar and received Rs. 5,000 there and that she had sold one acre of land (in fact the sale deed was only of 0.34 acres, i.e., 1/3 of an acre). Strangely enough even thereafter SOC held that the evidence which was adduced was not sufficient to prove the sale deed. SOC further held that the witness could not prove the execution of the sale deed and came to the conclusion that as the witness did not recognise the seller and had not seen the land hence the sale deed was not proved.

Soc also held that exchange was bad for want of permission under Section 161 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed on 18.1.1982. Thereafter petitioner filed Revision No. 89/227. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 sons of Sri N. D. Chaudhary also filed Revision No. 476 of 1984. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra Camp at Mathura dismissed both the revisions through common judgment dated 19.7.1984. DDC did not say anything regarding validity or invalidity of the sale deed. Impliedly DDC accepted that the sale deed was genuine and valid.

(3.)THE view of SOC regarding genuineness of the sale deed is patently erroneous in law. Signatures of the executant Smt. Chando on the sale deed were found to be proved by the SOC. She had also admitted that she had gone to the office of Sub-Registrar, affixed her thumb impression and received Rs. 5,000 (as sale consideration) there. This completely proved the sale deed. Smt. Chando did not raise any objection that the sale deed was void or voidable due to fraud misrepresen-tation or undue influence.
As far as the question of filing objection by Sri N. D. Chaudhary is concerned, all the courts below held that he had not filed objections hence no relief could be granted to him. He was fully supporting the exchange and asserting that he had actually purchased the property from Smt. Chando. This was sufficient.