Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Sudarshan - Appellant
Vs.
Board of Revenue, U.P. - Respondent
Writ B No. 13334 of 1984
Decided On : 16-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.S. Mishra, R.P. Mishra
For the Respondent: V.K. Shukla, Arvind Kumar Pandey, S.K. Singh, H.S.N. Tripathi, S.K. Tyagi
The admissibility of evidence, including public documents and oral testimony, and the reliance on the preponderance of probabilities in evaluating the evidence were the central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
U.P. Tenancy Act - Suits under Section 59/61 - 59, 61 - The court discussed the relevance of Birth Register, Voter List, and Mortgage deed in establishing the parentage of the claimant. It also considered the admissibility of oral evidence and the presumption raised by public documents. The court found that the evidence of the claimant was more convincing and relied upon by the lower appellate court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the inheritance of land under the U.P. Tenancy Act. The claimant filed suits under Section 59/61 to establish her as the daughter and heir of the deceased co-tenant. The trial court dismissed the suits, but the appellate court decreed them in favor of the claimant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant's evidence, including the Birth Register, Voter List, and Mortgage deed, was admissible and more convincing. It also held that the claimant had become a co-tenant after the death of the deceased, and actual physical possession was not necessary.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the establishment of the claimant's parentage and her right to the disputed land under the U.P. Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissibility of evidence, including public documents and oral testimony, to establish the claimant's parentage and inheritance rights. It also considered the presumption raised by public documents and the preponderance of probabilities in evaluating the evidence.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the lower appellate court's decision in favor of the claimant.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Heard Sri Arun Kumar, for the petitioners, Sri S.K. Tyagi, for the contesting respondents.
2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Additional Commissioner dated 15.06.1972, allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of trial court dated 29.03.1971 and decreeing the suit of respondent-3 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 18.07.1984 dismissing second appeal of the petitioners, arsing out of suit under Section 59/61 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. Smt. Marchhia (respondent-3) filed two suits on 12.04.1967 (registered as Suit Nos. 37 and 38 of 1970) under Section 59/61 of the Act, for declaring her as the daughter and heir of Raja Rai, having ? share in the land recorded khatas 8 and 13 respectively of village Janari, pargana and district Ballia. She took plea that Raja Rai was co-tenant having ? share in aforesaid khatas, which was their fixed-rate-tenancy. Raja Rai died on 04.08.1948, leaving behind him, Smt. Marchhia, his daughter, as his only heir and legal representative as such she had become co-tenant of ? share in disputed land. In these suits, defendants-1st set were original co-tenants of Raja Rai, defendants-2nd sets were vendees and defendants-3rd set were mortgagee of defendants-1st set. Defendants-4th set were zamindars/land holders.
4. Pariksha Rai and others (defendants-1st set) (now represented by the petitioners) filed their written statement and contested the suit. They admitted that Raja Rai was co-tenant of ? share in aforesaid khatas and died on 04.08.1948. But they took plea that Raja Rai was unmarried and died issueless. After his death his share in the disputed land was devolved upon remaining cotenants by way of survivorship. Smt. Marchhia was daughter of Ram Bali's mother's sister and had malafide filed the suits to grab the share of Raja Rai, in collusion of Ram Bali. After death of Raja Rai, name of Smt. Marchhia was not recorded over disputed land in revenue records and the suits were barred under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Smt. Marchhia was not in possession of disputed land as such the suits were barred under section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
5. The suits were consolidated and tried by Sub-Divisional Officer II, Rasra, Ballia. Both the parties adduced their documentary and oral evidence. Sub-Divisional Officer, by his judgment dated 29.03.1971, held that it was admitted that Raja Rai had ?th share in both the disputed khatas and died on 04.08.1948. After death of Raja Rai, the name of Smt. Marchhia was not mutated as his heir nor she had ever paid any rent of the disputed land. In khasra also her possession was not recorded. She stated that she was doing her cultivation through one Mahendra Singh but he was not examined as a witness. In her oral statement, Smt. Marchhia could not state name of any neighbourer of Raja Rai although she claimed to reside there. According to her, Rama Shankar and Uma Shankar of village Banrahi were his maternal uncle, who were best witness to prove relationship but they were not examined although they were alive. According to her, she was married at village Chit Baragaon in the family of Nagina Rai but no one of the family of Nagina Rai was examined. Raja Rai executed number of mortgage deeds but it were redeemed by defendants-1st set who had filed it from their possession, from which also it was proved that share of Raja Rai was devolved upon remaining co-tenants, who got the land redeemed from mortgage, after death of Raja Rai. Extract of Birth Register, showing that one daughter was born to Raja Rai on 14.08.1920 was filed but Birth Register is not a conclusive proof until it was corroborated with any other evidence. Birth Register was of village Janari and not of village Bhora Chhapra, where Raja Rai was residing. Mortgage deed dated 10.01.1933, executed by Raja Rai, containing recital that he had one daughter is a money bond and cannot be read as an eviden
