Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Baldev and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors. - Respondent
Writ-B No. 11882 of 2015
Decided On : 03-04-2015
Will - Inheritance Dispute - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 - Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an inheritance dispute over land recorded in village Chechraf Buzurg. The dispute arose between Smt. Rampati, claiming to be the married daughter of Munesar, and Sarjoo, the real brother of Munesar, who contested her claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Smt. Rampati was indeed the daughter of Munesar and that the Will dated 27.10.1984 in her favor was duly executed. The court also held that the order of Supervisor Kanoongo recording the name of Sarjoo as an heir of Munesar was without jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issues were the inheritance rights of Smt. Rampati as the daughter of Munesar and the validity of the Will dated 27.10.1984.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to determine the validity of the Will and the inheritance rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the findings of the lower courts regarding Smt. Rampati's inheritance rights and the validity of the Will.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 4.4.2012, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 6.9.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.1.2015 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The dispute relates to inheritance of Munesar son of Lakshiman of the land recorded in basic consolidation year khatas 48, 161 and 189 of village Chechraf Buzurg, pargana Bansi Paschim, district Siddharth Nagar, in which Munesar was one of the co-sharer along with others. During consolidation, Smt. Rampati (now represented by Chandi (respondent-4) filed three separate objections, in respect of aforesaid khatas, for recording her name, on the basis of registered Will dated 27.10.1984, allegedly executed by Munesar in her favour, who claims herself to be (sic) married daughter of Muneshar. Sarjoo (father of the petitioners) contested the case on the ground that Munesar was unmarried and died issueless on 5.7.1984. He, being real brother of Munesar, was his heir under section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Supervisor Kanoongo by order dated 29.8.1984, directed for recording his name as an heir of Munesar, on the basis of report under PA-11-A. Munesar had already died on 5.7.1984, alleged Will dated 26.10.1984 was a document, fabricated by some imposter. Smt. Rampati filed original Will dated 27.10.1984 and examined Smt. Rampati as PW-1, Dhanpat (PW-2), attesting witness and Bhagwat Prasad (PW-3), scribe of the Will. The petitioners examined Makkhan (DW-1), Wazid Ali (DW-2) and Sarif Ahmad (DW-3). The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties held that it was admitted that Smt. Rampati was daughter of Munesar. Due execution of registered Will dated 27.10.1984 was proved by Dhanpat (PW-2), attesting witness and Bhagwat Prasad (PW-3), scribe of the will. The village was placed under consolidation operation by notification dated 12.11.1983, as such order of Supervisor Kanoongo, dated 29.8.1984, recording the name of Sarjoo as an heir of Munesar, was without jurisdiction. The petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove that Munesar died on 5.7.1984. On these findings, objections of Smt. Rampati were allowed and her name was directed to be recorded over khatas in dispute as an legatee of Munesar.
3. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 781) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 6.9.2012, again held that it was admitted that Smt. Rampati was daughter of Munesar. Due execution of registered Will dated 27.10.1984 was proved by Dhanpat (PW-2), attesting witness. Execution of the Will in favour of married daughter is not suspicious. The petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove that Munesar died on 5.7.1984. The village was placed under consolidation operation by notification dated 12.11.1983 as such order of Supervisor Kanoongo, dated 29.8.1984, recording the name of Sarjoo as an heir of Munesar, was without jurisdiction. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 670) from the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 31.1.2015 affirmed the aforesaid findings and dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
4. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have denied that Smt. Rampati was daughter of Munesar, from very beginning. It was case of the petitioners that Munesar was bachelor and died issueless, which was proved from Pariwar Register. At the time of death of Munesar on 5.7.1984, Sarjoo, his real brother was alive as such he has inherited his share in the land in dispute under section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Supervisor Kanoongo, by order dated 29.8.1984, recorded the name of Sarjoo as an heir of Munesar. No
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
