The legal principle established is that a party claiming property ownership must provide sufficient evidence and explanation to support their claim, and the courts may rely on relevant legal provisions and lack of evidence to dismiss the claim.

Raghvendra Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Initially the plaintiff-appellant, Kishna Behari instituted Original Suit No. 1602 of 1999 against Smt. Chandrawati and others for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed vide order dated 27.4.2011 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge ( Jr. Division), Court No. 15, Allahabad. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff-appellant preferred First Appeal No. 1136 of 2011 against Smt. Urmila Devi and others which too has been dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Court 19, Allahabad vide order dated 29.7.2016 and the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court was affirmed. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the courts below, the instant appeal is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff-appellant is the owner of Araji Nos. 136 and 260 and is recorded in the revenue record as Bhumidhar. It is submitted that so long entry continues, it is to be treated to be valid and there shall be presumption under section 57 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act about the correctness of the entry. The plaintiff-appellant claims to be the owner by virtue of the will deed 12.11.1994 executed by Triveni Prasad who was recorded tenure holder of the property in dispute. Triveni Prasad, at the time of death, left behind his wife. The couple was issuless. The plaintiff appellant initiated proceeding before the appropriate authority under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and pursuant to the order passed therein dated 23.4.1999, the name of the plaintiff-appellant was recorded as owner in place of Triveni Prasad. Smt. Chandrawati filed a restoration and plaintiff's name was deleted/stayed. Smt. Chandrawati executed a registered will in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on 7.8.2003 and she subsequently died. The mutation proceeding are pending.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon para 2 and 3 of the evidence filed alongwith the stay application in this appeal at page 108 of the paper book.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned courts below have recorded the finding that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish his title and possession over the property in dispute. The Appeal nos. 51 and 54 of 2010 are pending before the appropriate forum against the mutation order passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.

6. Learned trial court has considered in detail the admitted position that Triveni Prasad left behind his wife as sole heir. Learned court below has considered this aspect bearing in mind various proposition of law laid down from time to time that in the presence of wife, Triveni Prasad executed will in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Learned trial court has made an observation that the document of title of will has not been produced by the plaintiff-appellant before the trial court and the will dated 12.1.1994 is an unregistered document. The plaintiff-appellant did not put forward a reasonable explanation before the trial court for not producing the will. Triveni Prasad did not give any share of the movable or immovable property to his wife and ignoring her he has executed will deed. Learned court below has also considered the aspect of entry made in the revenue records in reference to the Supreme Court pronouncement referred in the body of the judgment. Learned court below have also made observation on the document wherein the operation of the entry made in favour of the plaintiff-appellant has been stayed. The court below has also considered the pleadings of the defendants with respect to the execution of sale deed by the defendant no.3, in favour of defendant no. 1 with respect to 2/3 share of Araji No. 260. the judgment of the trial court also finds mention on the basis of the admission made by P.W.1 with respect to the pendency of the suit for cancellation of the sale de