The court reinforced the requirement of clear lineage verification for legitimate claims of inheritance in mutation matters.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The petitioners seek restoration of the order made by the learned Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, on 25.03.2010, whereby, the attestation of mutation made in favour of one Abha son of Bhankar, thus on the demise of one Maha Kaur, rather became rejected. Moreover, through the instant petition, a challenge is made to the drawings respectively of Annexure P-2, and, of Annexure P-5, drawn respectively by respondent No.3, and, by respondent No.2, whereby, both respondents (supra), proceeding to set aside and annul Annexure P-1, as became drawn by the respondent No.5.

2. Before proceeding to determine the respective validities of the Annexures (supra), it is deemed imperative to bear in mind the apposite pedigree table, which becomes extracted hereinafter.

Bhankar

Niyadar (1/2)

(Died issueless and

share went to wife Maha Kaur)

Maha Kaur w/o Niyadar

(Died issueless and 1/2 share went

to Abha vide Mutation No.1887)

Abha (1/2

(now owner of whole 120 Bigha)

7 Biswa)

3. A perusal of the hereinabove extracted pedigree table reveals, that the original owner of the disputed lands was one Bhankar and on his demise, his estate devolved in equal shares to his two sons, namely, Niyadar and Abha. However, Niyadar died issueless and on his demise, his estate became inherited by his wife Maha Kaur. However, said Maha Kaur died issueless and resultantly, with Abha being the brother of Niyadar, therefore, on demise of Maha Kaur, the estate of Niyadar, as became inherited by Maha Kaur, devolved upon Abha, thus through attestation of mutation bearing No.1887. In sequitur, Abha became the absolute owner of the entire estate of his predecessor-in-interest one Bhankar.

4. Subsequent to the demise of Abha, his estate devolved upon his son Data Ram, thus through attestation of mutation bearing No.1888. Subsequently, on demise of Data Ram, his estate was devolved upon his daughter Bala @ Pyari, thus through attestation of mutation bearing No.1889.

5. It appears that Bala further sold the disputed lands, but, the said deed(s) of conveyance became challenged in Civil Suit No.219/1 of 2003 and latter in Appeal bearing No.15 of 2008. However, both the suit and the appeal (supra) became dismissed, thus on the ground, that the deed(s) of conveyance, as became executed by Bala, became executed by her in a lawful capacity.

6. Be that as it may, it appears that a police inquiry was conducted with respect to the validity of attestations of mutation(s) (supra), but, the said police inquiry was a sequel of orders becoming passed by this Court, upon, CWP-23258-2010. It appears that the decision (supra) resulted in cancellation of mutation(s) (supra), thus on the ground, that the relationship of the recipients of the orders of mutation(s) (supra), thus with their predecessor(s)- in-interest, rather remaining not cogently verified, nor becoming confirmed.

7. Subsequently it appears that, as mentioned in Annexure P-2, that the verificatory process resulted in a finding by the investigating agency, that the relationship of the recipients of the orders of mutation(s) (supra), thus with the predecessors-in-interest rather becoming cogently established. Resultantly, thereby they held the legal capacity to ensure the recordings of mutation(s) (supra), thus in their respective favours.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues for restoration of the order made by the learned Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, on 25.03.2010. In his making the above submission, he attempts to dislodge the efficacy of the makings of the mutation(s) (supra). Nonetheless, the best evidence to accept his submission could become well founded only upon, the apposite pedigree table becoming tendered into evidence. Moreover, the same was required to exempl