Jurisdiction of revenue authorities in adjudicating on right to succession and validity of wills, and the requirement for referral to the Civil Court for such matters.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is directed against the proceedings initiated under the Land Revenue Act. While considering the mutation on the death of Khema to modify the land record in accordance with the law by entering the name of his legal heirs, the present petitioner Shantilal natural born son of Shri Jamna Lal lodged his claim to be mutated on the basis that he was adopted son of deceased Khema as well as on the basis that the will is executed in his favour on 21-3-1994. The respondent No. 5 Rameshwarlal also lodged his claim, claiming himself to be a son of Khema. He is not natural born son of Khema but he is son of Kanhaiyalal born out of the wedlock of Kanhaiyalal and Mangi, respondent No. 6, who after the death of Kanhaiyalal remarried Khema and Rameshwarlal remained with his mother Mangi and step father Khema. He too alleged that a later will has been executed in his favour by the deceased Khema on 9-1-1996 barely two months before the death of deceased Khema. The claim was also lodged by Mangi as widow of deceased Khema. Tehsildar adjudicated upon the claims and decided the question of adoption as well as the question about the operative will out of the two wills produced before him by rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

3. In my opinion, once the dispute about the right to succession was raised at the time of mutation it was not open to the revenue authorities to adjudicate upon the right to succession but the matter should have been referred to the Civil Court or the parties should have been directed to get their civil rights adjudicated through appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. The only undisputed fact is that Smt. Mangi survived Khema as his widow at the time of his death. Except on adjudication of validity of one or other will to be operative, her rights on interested succession is not in dispute; and in the absence of any declaration as to validity of will in favour of the propounder by a competent Court she cannot be denied her right.

4. In these circumstances, all the proceedings by the various revenue authorities in giving findings on the question of adoption by Khema and operative nature of the wills are without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. As a result, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the revenue authorities are quashed and the parties are left free to prosecute their remedy in appropriate civil forum for getting their rights determined as to the succession of Khema. There shall be no order to cost.Petition allowed.

*******