The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving the due execution of registered documents, the onus of proof, and the shifting of the burden of proof in civil cases.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notices for respondents-1 to 3 and Sri R.N. Singh Yadav has accepted for respondent-4, who states that he has instruction on behalf of remaining contesting respondents-5 to 10. He does not propose to file counter-affidavit. Respondents-11 and 12 are the proforma respondents. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is decided finally. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, for the petitioners and Sri R.N.S. Yadav, for respondents-4 to 10 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 7.1.2015, passed in proceedings under section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of chak 47 [carved out from plots 620 (area 0.295 hectare), 621 (area 0.011 hectare), 622 (area 0.010 hectare) and 623 (area 0.010 hectare)] of village Chakdeva, tappa Chhitpur, tahsil Mohammadabad Gohna, district Azamgarh (at present Mau), which belonged to Smt. Daswati widow of Basdev. Smt. Daswati wanted to sell the land in dispute and obtained permission of Settlement Officer Consolidation to sell it as required under section 5(1)(c) of the Act on 16.3.1967. According to the petitioners, Smt. Daswati executed a sale-deed dated 17.3.1967 in favour of Jag Mohan, Jangi and Jahagi (now represented by the petitioners and respondents-11 and 12). According to the respondents, Smt. Daswati executed a sale-deed in favour of Rajbali, Suryabali and Paltan (now represented by respondents-4 to 10) on 1.5.1967 of the land in dispute. The respondents denied execution of sale-deed dated 17.3.1967 by Smt. Daswati. On the basis of sale deeds both of them applied for mutation of their names over the land in dispute under section 12 of the Act.

3. The cases were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer, who allowed mutation application of the petitioners and appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 8.10.1968. However, Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 24.9.1970, allowed the revision of the respondents and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. After remand, Consolidation Officer, by the order dated 6.6.1975 directed for recording the names of the respondents. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 18.9.1978, allowed the appeal of the petitioners and again remanded to Consolidation Officer. But in the revision Assistant Director of Consolidation, by order dated 6.7.1979 directed Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the appeal himself giving opportunity of additional evidence to the parties. After remand, the matter remained pending for a long time. The petitioners moved an application dated 17.12.1997, for obtaining expert report, in respect of thumb impression of Smt. Daswati as affixed on the sale-deed dated 17.3.1967. The respondents moved an application dated 17.12.1997 that as Smt. Daswati, in her statement had admitted execution of sale-deed dated 1.5.1967 as such there was no need for expert report of thumb impressions of Smt. Daswati on this sale deed. Settlement Officer Consolidation framed an additional issue on 6.8.1998 as to whether Smt. Daswati executed sale-deed dated 17.3.1967 in favour of Jag Mohan and others and the sale-deed contained her thumb impressions. On that very day, Jag Mohan made an endorsement, which signed by his advocate also, on his application dated 17.12.1997 that he did not want for expert examination of thumb impressions. Thereafter, the appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 25.11.1999 found that Smt. Daswati was examined before Consolidation Officer on 19.5.1968. In her statement, she had merely shown her ignorance in respect of execution of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners and had not specifically denied execution of sale-de