Raja Ram Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammads.u. khan, j.1.heard learned counsel for the parties.2. one of the points argued on one of the earlier dates on which this review petition was heard, was regarding applicability of section 172 of u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act to a case of gift by father to the daughter.3. on 15.9.2006, when the review petition was finally heard, another point was argued which was to the effect that by virtue of the agreement executed by donee raj rani d/o donor baiju dated 30.9.1967, the donor baiju who had executed the gift deed on the same date in favour of his daughter rajrani was entitled to get the gift deed cancelled.4. as far as the first point is concerned, it has got no force. under section 172, u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, the agricultural land left behind by a lady devolves upon the heirs of that male person from whom she had inherited the property. however, getting the property through gift does not amount to inheritance. 5. as far as the second point is concerned, it is correct that in the agreement copy of which is annexure-2 to the writ petition srimati rajrani in whose favour on the same date her father baiju had executed the registered gift deed in respect of agricultural land in dispute agreed that she would take care of her father and in case she did not take proper care then her father would be entitled to get a decree of maintenance to the extent of rs. 30 per month passed through the court. it was also provided under the said agreement that her father was entitled to get the gift deed cancelled and srimati rajrani or her descendants would have no objections. learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard has cited two authorities-one is jagat singh v. dungar singh : air1951all599 and the other is ml purnia k. v. manindra nath mahanti air 1968 assam and nagaland 50. in the said authorities under somewhat similar circumstances it was held that in case the donee after executing similar agreement as was executed by raj rani in the instant case did not take care of the donor then donor was entitled to get the gift deed cancelled. however, in the instant case suit for cancellation of the gift deed was filed by baiju in the year 1971 in the form of original suit no. 596 of 1971 after the death of rajrani (certified copy of the plaint of the suit was supplied by the learned counsel for the respondents on 15.9.2006). in para 3 of the plaint it was mentioned that he had a daughter whose name was rajrani who had died. in the plaint it was alleged that the gift deed was a result of fraud and in fact, the plaintiff had never executed the gift deed. in the plaint cancellation was not sought on the ground that raj rani in terms of the agreement executed by her did not take proper care of baiju, her father donor. in fact, in the plaint instead of cancellation of gift deed a declaration was sought to the effect that gift deed being result of fraud was void. in any case, in the plaint cancellation of gift deed was sought on the ground of fraud and not on the ground of non performance of the condition mentioned in the agreement. in view of all these allegations the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities is not applicable.6. no other point has been argued.7. review petition is therefore, dismissed.