IMPORTANT POINT
A document may be admissible, yet may not have probative value.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19334 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the three statutory authorities under the Statute.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Chandra Deo Singh was recorded as the khatedar of Khata Nos.485, 620, 146 and 66 of Village Bhojapur and Khata No.21 of Village Kanshari. The respondents in appeal, Rajni Kant and Anjani Kumar claimed themselves to be the sons of said Chandra Deo Singh and filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Consolidation Act’) and they asked for inclusion of their names as his heirs. Another objection was filed by the appellants in the disputed khata submitting that the said respondents had no right or interest in the suit land, not being the sons of late Chandra Deo Singh and the appellants were his only legal heirs. The Consolidation Officer having framed large number of issues and having provided full opportunity of hearing to both the parties to lead evidence and make submissions, passed an order dated 8.11.2000, allowing the objections filed by the respondents and further directing to record their names. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred the appeal before the Settlement Officer which had been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2001. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred Revision No.958 under Section 48 of the Consolidation Act which also stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15.3.2003.

3. The appellants further agitated the issue, challenging the said judgments and orders by filing Writ Petition No.19334/2003 which has also been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 14.8.2003. Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri Mahabir Singh, Ld. Senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, has submitted that mother of the appellants, Smt. Sonbarsa died in 1945. Chandra Deo Singh, father of the appellants remained in Jail as a Freedom Fighter from 1945-47. There is nothing on record to show that appellants’ father got married with the mother of the respondents Smt. Shakuntala in accordance with law. At the most she could be concubine of Chandra Deo Singh and being illegitimate children, the respondents have no right to inherit any share in the suit land. More so, the respondents were born prior to having started live-in-relationship between Chandra Deo Singh and said Smt. Shakuntala as is evident from the School Register and School leaving certificate produced by the appellants before the statutory authorities as well as before the High Court and this Court. The said documents had not been properly appreciated by any of the authorities. The findings of facts recorded by the statutory authorities are perverse being contrary to evidence on record produced by the appellants. The High Court did not make any attempt to appreciate the evidence at all. Findings so recorded, are perverse, being contrary to the evidence on record. The appeal has merit and thus, deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, Shri Abhay Kumar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that three statutory authorities under the Consolidation Act have recorded the concurrent finding of fact that Chandra Deo Singh and Smt. Shakuntala were living together for a long time. Their relationship as husband and wife had been accepted by the Society as well as the family members. In many official documents, name of Chandra Deo Singh has been shown as the father of the respondents. In the beginning, Chandra Deo Singh did not disclose the relationship with Smt. Shakuntala because of social conditions that the Society may not accept their relationship even after the death of his wife Smt. Sonbarsa. Both the respondents were born out of their relationship.