SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(All) 332

[2006(4) ADJ 528 (All)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.
ANAR DEVI AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, AGRA AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6595 of 2006, decided on 2nd February, 2006)

Advocates:
Counsel :
R.N. Sharma and A.K. Sharma for the Petitioners; V.K. Singh, S.C., V.D. Ojha, C.S.C., for the Respondents.

Headnote:U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953—Sections 4, 5(2) and 9—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XLI, Rule 27—Registered Will—Additional evidence—Permission given by D.D.C. to opposite party 2 to get examined thumb-impression from expert, as prayed by revisionists—Writ petition against—Objections filed by petitioners, on basis of a registered Will, in respect of same Khatas—And claimed rights, on basis of that Will, allegedly executed—Revision still pending i.e., for last 20 years—Whether at revisional stage, D.D.C. was competent to admit additional evidence in form of Expert's opinion—Though provisions of C.P.C. was not applicable to consolidation proceedings—But settled principles of C.P.C., 1908 applicable in trial, appeal and revision in Title Proceedings under Consolidation Act—As order passed by D.D.C., did not contain any reason, impugned order liable to be set aside and quashed—Therefore, revisional authority directed to decide revision, in accordance with law, on basis of materials on record—Hence, petition allowed. [Paras 8 to 14]

       

JUDGMENT

Honble S.N. Srivastava, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13-1-2006, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra by which he has permitted contesting Opposite Party No. 2 herein to get examined thumb impression from expert as prayed by Jeetpal-revisionist.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the dispute relates to one-third share of Jamuna Prasad son of Shiv Singh. After the death of Jamuna Prasad, his property devolved upon his two sons Ram Dayal and Ram Chandra, who were issueless. Ram Dayal predeceased Ram Chandra. According to petitioners, Ram Chandra executed a registered will in their favour on 16-4-1971 in respect of his moveable and immoveable properties. Ram Chandra died on 13-8-1978. On the basis of the registered will, petitioners filed an application for mutation before Tehsildar, Bah, District Agra, which was allowed on 22-7-1978. Contesting Opposite Parties-Kali Charan, Sripal and Devi Ram also filed an application for mutation on the basis of some unregistered will and got some ex parte orders on 12-2-1978 for mutation. But, on the basis of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, consolidation proceedings commenced on 7-10-1978. One Jeet Lal challenged the order dated 22-7-1978 in Appeal and obtained an ex parte order dated 13-11-1978. Subsequently, appeal abated. The order dated 13-11-1978 was challenged in Revision by the petitioners. Revision preferred was abated under Section 5 (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. In the Basic year Munijar son of Jyoti Prasad, Karan Singh, Rajpat and Mahipati sons of Mahendra, Data Ram son of Gopi Chand, Devi Ram, Kali Charan and Sripal sons of Gambhir, Ram Chand son of Jamuna Prasad, Vishambar Dayal, Satya Narayan and Sapta Prasad sons of Har Govind were recorded in Khata No. 39 and 40. Khata No. 51 was exclusively recorded in the name of Ram Chand son of Jamuna Prasad in the Basic year. In respect of Khata No. 57, names of Ram Chand son of Jamuna Prasad, Devi Ram, Kali Charan and Sripal sons of Gambhir, Vishambar Dayal, Satya Narain and Sapta Prasad sons of Har Govind were recorded. In respect of Khata No. 144, names of Munijar son of Jyoti Prasad, Mahipati, Karan Singh and Rajpal sons of Mahindra, Ram Chand Son of Jamuna Prasad, Devi Ram, Kali Charan and Sripal son of Gambhir, Satya Narayan and Sapta Prasad son of Har Govind were recorded.

3. Petitioners filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act on the basis of registered will dated 16-4-1971. Jeet Pal son of Dwarika Prasad also filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act in respect of same Khatas and claimed his rights on the basis of an unregistered will allegedly executed on 21-10-1977. Other objections were also filed by Jeetpal in respect of Khata Nos. 39, 51, 57 and 144. Gaon Sabha also filed objection on the ground that Ram Chandra was issueless and the land vested in Gaon Sabha after his death. Kali Charan, Sri Pal and Devi Ram sons of Gambhir Singh also filed an objection claiming themselves to be successors of Ram Chand. Oral and documentary evidence were led by the parties in support of their respective cases. Jeetpal produced himself as a witness and also produced Baburam son of Narayan and Dataram son of Nagpal as attesting witnesses of the unregistered will dated 21-10-1977. The scriber of the will was not produced. Consolidation Officer by an order dated 12th October, 1979 rejected objection dated 10th July, 1979 of Kali Charan and others and also rejected all other objections in default by an order dated 15th October, 1979, but subsequently on the restoration application of petitioners and Jeetpal, by an order dated 28-11-1979, Consolidation Officer allowed restoration applications and the matter was restored to its original number to be heard on merits. Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties allowed objection of petitioners and rejected objection of Jeetpal by an order dated 15th March, 1982.

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top