Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Shardul Ranjan and Others - Appellant
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Mau and Others - Respondent
Writ - B No. - 50930 of 2015
Decided On : 08-09-2015
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - Inheritance Dispute - Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 - Section 169 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 - [12, 171, 169]
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved inheritance of land after the death of Smt. Chiraita Devi. The petitioners claimed inheritance based on an unregistered will, while respondent-4 claimed inheritance as per Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unregistered will produced by the petitioners was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and could not be relied upon. The court also held that the date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi was 10.10.2004, based on evidence, and that the will was not admissible as it was not registered as per Section 169 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the unregistered will, the date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi, and the inheritance rights of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 169 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951, which made registration of the will compulsory from 23.08.2004. The court also emphasized the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will and the importance of proving the testator's sound and disposing state of mind.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the findings of the consolidation authorities.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastav, for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Tiwari, for the caveator.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 06.07.2011, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.08.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.07.2015, passed in the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. Dispute is for inheritance of the land of Smt. Chiraita Devi widow of Ram Sareeh of chaks 287-Aa and 287-Ba of village Ranveerpur, khatas 62 and 63 of village Dihula and khata 38 of village Kripal Kot, pargana Mohammadabad Gohna, district Mau, which was recorded in her name. After death of Smt. Chiraita Devi, Smt. Kamla Devi (respondent-4) (daughter of Smt. Chiraita Devi) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 483) under Section 12 of the Act, for recording her name over the land in dispute, claiming herself to be an heir of Smt. Chiraita Devi according to Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Smt. Kamla Devi stated that Kumari Devi and Kamla Devi were two daughters of Ram Sareeh, who had no male issue. Smt. Kumari Devi died during life time of Smt. Chiraita Devi. After her death she was only heir of Smt. Chiraita Devi. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 26.09.2007 allowed her objection and recorded her name over land in dispute.
4. Shardul Ranjan and others (the petitioners) filed an application dated 29.02.2008 for recall of the aforesaid order. The recall application was allowed by Consolidation Officer. Later on, the petitioners filed an objection dated 25.10.2008, for recording their names over the land in dispute, on the basis of an unregistered will dated 16.05.2003, allegedly executed by Smt. Chiraita, in their favour. It has been stated by the petitioners that they were husband's brother's son's sons of Smt. Chiraita Devi. Husband of Smt. Chiraita Devi died long ago. Smt. Chiraita Devi had two daughters, namely Kumari and Kamla and both were married. Kumari had also died. Kamla was residing at her husband house. Smt. Chiraita Devi was living jointly with them and they were looking after her, in her old age. Smt. Chiraita Devi voluntarily executed the will dated 16.05.2003, in their favour in presence of the attesting witnesses. She died on 23.05.2003. They inherited the land in dispute on the basis of the will. The name of Smt. Kamla Devi was wrongly mutated without any notice to them, by order dated 26.09.2007.
5. Smt. Kamla Devi contested the case and stated that Smt. Chiraita Devi was not living with the petitioners nor she executed any will in their favour. The alleged will dated 16.05.2003 is a forged an fabricated document. Smt. Chiraita Devi was through out living separately from the petitioners. In the old age, she was living with her mother at village Ranveerpur. When, in her last days Smt. Chiraita fell ill seriously, then she get treatment at Ghazipur city and for that purpose, she had taken a room on rent for residing there at mohalla Sakelnabad, Ghazipur city, where she died on 10.10.2004. The petitioners have set up incorrect date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi as from 23.08.2004, registration of the will has become compulsory under Section 169 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, by U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004. After death of Smt. Chiraita Devi, her name was mutated by order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.09.2007 after due proclamation. Unregistered will dated 16.05.2003 was later on fabricated with malafide intention to grab the properties of her mother.
6. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer. The petitioners examined Janardan Singh, attesting witness of the will dated 16.05.2003 and Prabhat Ranjan (petitioner-2) and filed will dated 16.05.2003, copy of Pariwar Register showing date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi as 23.05.2003. Respondent-4 examined Dukhanti Singh and Smt. Kamla Devi, herself and filed Death Certificate issued from Medical and
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
