IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.361 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(c) No.  17695 of 2006)

Subba & Anr. …Appellant

Versus

Debiya & Anr. …Respondent   

J U D G M E N T  

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY,J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  of

Allahabad High Court dated 3.7.2006 in CMWP No. 5813/85 setting

aside the judgment and order of Revisional Court .  

3. The facts leading to filing of this  appeal  are:  one Smt. Sonia

resident of village Chhibab was married in   Zari with Mengi.  Only two

daughters namely Bhagwania and Maiki were born out of the wedlock.

The appellants herein  Subba and Sudish  are the sons of Maiki. After

the demise of Mengi, Sonia inherited the property in question from the

deceased Mengi.  It is alleged that after the death of Mengi one Teni

who was working for Sonia as labourer developed illicit relations with

Sonia as a result one son Debiya  respondent herein was born. Be it

noted, as per the version of the appellants Debiya is not the legal son

of  Sonia  and  Mengi,  therefore,  he  could  not  be  the  legal  heir  to

succeed the inherited property of Sonia. Teni died in the year 1956.

Sonia died in April, 1977.  In the year 1978, the appellants herein filed

objections under  the provisions of U.P.  Consolidation Holdings Act,

1953 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Zari,  District Banda

for declaration as legal heirs of Sonia and their names to be recorded

in  the  revenue  records  in  place  of  Sonia.   Deviya  also  filed  his

objections  whereunder  he  claimed  that  the  disputed  property  was

self-acquired property of  his  father Teni.  The Consolidation Officer

vide order dated 7.7.1980 declared Debiya to be the sole legal heir of

Sonia and Teni.  The appellants  herein  being aggrieved  by the said

order filed Appeal No. 1838 before the  Assistant Settlement Officer

Consolidation,  Jhansi  Camp-Banda  which  was  dismissed  vide  order

dated  25.9.1980.  Thereafter  the  appellants  filed  revision  no.  1656

which was allowed by the Assistant Director Consolidation vide order

dated 19.4.1985 setting aside the judgment and order of Settlement

2

Officer Consolidation and directed the names of the appellants to be

recorded in respect of the said property left behind by Sonia.  Being

aggrieved by the revisional order Debiya-the respondent herein filed

writ petition before the High Court.  The High Court while allowing the

writ  petition quashed the judgment and order of Assistant Director

Consolidation  and  restored  the  order  of  Consolidation  Officer  and

Settlement Officer Consolidation. Hence  this appeal.  

4. We have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the impugned judgment and the material made available

on record.  

5. The High Court mainly relied upon the admission stated to have

been made by the appellants herein in their objections to the effect

that the respondent was born out of “illegal relationship of Teni and

Sonia.”  The whole conclusion of the High Court and its decision to

reverse  the  order  of  the  Revisional  Court  is  based  upon  the  said

admission.  

6. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to

whether the High Court committed any error apparent on the face of

3

the record in coming to such conclusion that the respondent herein

was born out of the relationship between Teni and Sonia? Secondly,

whether  the  evidence  available  on  record  supports  the  conclusion

reached by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India? Thirdly, whether is there any such admission at

all made by the appellants herein in their objections?

7. The evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent herein is not

clear as regards the birth of Debiya out of the relationship between

Teni and Sonia.  No doubt the entries in the voter list of the year 1959

as well as 1975 the name of the respondent was shown as son of Teni

but that evidence of respondent itself is not of any assistance to arrive

at any conclusion that he was born out of the relationship between

Teni and Sonia.  He expressed his ignorance as to when and where

Teni died.  

8. So  far  as  the  evidence  of  the  appellants  is  concerned,  the

witnesses  examined  on  their  behalf  in  clear  and  categorical  terms

stated that Teni did not belong to their village Zari but he came to that

village  in  search  of  work  along  with  the  respondent  and  he  was

engaged to work as labourer by Sonia.  

4

9. There  is  no  dispute  whatsoever  that  entries  in  the  revenue

records before the commencement of lis between the parties were in

the name of Sonia and Mengi in respect of the property in question.  It

is also not in dispute that Sonia was the legally wedded wife of Mengi.

It is out of the wedlock of Sonia and Mengi,  two daughters namely

Bhagwania and Maiki were born. The appellants are the sons of Maiki

- the deceased daughter of Sonia.  

10. In the circumstances it becomes difficult to accept the case set

up by the respondent herein that he inherited the property after the

death of Sonia.  There is no acceptable evidence that he was born out

of the relationship between Sonia and Teni. In order to overcome this

difficulty Debiya appears to have set up altogether a different case

that  the  possessory  right  of  land  was  acquired  from one  Bhagwat

Prasad  Zamindar.  But  there  is  no  acceptable  evidence  except  the

assertion of the respondent.  

11. We have perused the objections filed by the appellants herein

before the authority in which there is no such admission to the effect

that the respondent was born out of the “illegal relationship between

Teni  and  Sonia”  or  any  such  admission  in  the  evidence  of  the

5

appellants.  It is in the evidence of the appellant that Mengi died about

55 years ago as told to them by none other than Sonia.  It is also in

their evidence that the respondent herein is the son of Teni and not of

Sonia. Teni was merely cultivating the land on behalf of the appellants.

It  is  also  in  their  evidence  that  Sonia  and  respondent  both  lived

separately and never lived together.  The other witnesses on behalf of

the  appellants  reiterated  and  supported  the  version  given  by  the

appellants that Teni does not belong to their village but came to the

village in search of the work along with Debiya.  It is in their evidence

that  after  the  death  of  Mengi,  Sonia  did  not  give  birth  to  any

child/children.  

12. That  so  far  as  the  evidence  produced  on  behalf  of  the

respondent  to the effect that Sonia and Mengi did not have any issues

at all out of their wedlock does not inspire any confidence.  It is a self-

serving statement which cannot be accepted. No evidence has been

produced by the respondent that the property was acquired by Teni

from one Bhagwat Prasad Zamindar as claimed by him.  There is no

record to that effect maintained by the revenue administration. On the

contrary, the entries made in Khasra 1333 and 1334F in respect of the

land in question support the case of the appellants inasmuch as the

name of Sonia has been recorded in the said documents.   

6

13. That the Revisional Court after elaborate consideration of the

matter and upon appreciation of the evidence available on record in

categorical terms found that even during the lifetime of Teni and for a

very long time the name of Sonia has been continuously recorded in

all  the  revenue records.   It  is  for  that  reason the  Revisional  Court

found that the plea set up by the respondent herein that the property

in question was that of self-acquired property of his father Teni  was

not acceptable. The Revisional Court also found that the name of the

respondent herein had never been entered in any of the records after

the death of his father Teni. The Revisional Court found that had it

been self-acquired property of Teni the name of the respondent would

have been found place in the revenue records after the death of Teni.  

14. For all the aforesaid reasons it is clear from the evidence and

material available on record that the appellants herein never made any

admission that the respondent was born out of the illegal relationship

of Teni and Sonia nor there is any such admission made by them in

their evidence. The finding recorded by the Revisional Court that the

property  was  always held  and possessed  by  Sonia  as  her  absolute

property  does  not  suffer  from  any  error.   The  finding  that  the

appellants herein are the sons of Maiki - the deceased daughter of

7

Sonia also does not suffer from any error as the same is based upon

proper  appreciation  of  evidence  available  on  record.  There  is  no

evidence  whatsoever  to  arrive  at  any  proper  conclusion  that

respondent herein was born out of the wedlock/relationship between

Sonia and Teni.  

15. In our considered opinion,  the High Court  ought not to have

interfered  in  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  under  Article  227  of  the

Constitution of India with the  

decision of the Revisional Court which does not suffer from any factual

and legal infirmities.  

16. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside.

The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.  

……………………………………J.   (S.B. Sinha)

……………………………………J.      (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

……………………………………J.      (B. Sudershan Reddy)

8

New Delhi;  January  22, 2009

9

10