The evidentiary value of entries in the Family Register is subject to testing in regular proceedings claiming title or interest in land.

RAJAN ROY, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 7.1.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 under section 6A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947, by which, the order of the A.D.O. Panchayat dated 24.10.2017 cancelling the inclusion of the name of opposite party no.5 Bitta devi in the Family Register of the family headed by Surendra Kumar, has been set aside.

3. Fact of the case, in brief, are that Ram Harakh had five sons- Kanhaiya Lal, Balak Ram, Tribhuvan Dutt, Bhagwati and Ram Naresh. All the five sons are no more. Three of them i.e. Balak Ram, Bhagwati and Ram Naresh died issueless. Kanhaiya Lal had a son named Baur alias Chandrika who died in 2014. Opposite party no.5, Bitta claims to be the daughter of Kanhaiya Lal.

4. The son of Kanhaiya Lal i.e. Baur alias Chandrika died in the year 2014. It is thereafter that a dispute arose between the petitioner and opposite party no.5 obviously on account of a house bearing No.487 existing in the village in question in the name of Surendra Kumar which, according to the learned counsel for the parties before this Court, as per their statement at the Bar, is Joint Family Property which had devolved from five brothers referred above including father of petitioner and Surendra Kumar i.e. Tribhuwan Dutt. Now after the death of Baur alias Chandrika the factual position is that the only male survivors, are in the branch of Tribhuvan Dutt i.e. his sons Surendra Kumar and the petitioner Mahesh Kumar, who are brothers. In this scenario, the opposite party no.5 Bitta Devi who had been married in another family in the same village and is recorded in the Family Register of the said family filed an application in August 2017 for inclusion of her name in the Family Register of the family now headed by Surendra Kumar obviously to stake her claim to her share in the joint family property as per section 108 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006, corresponding to section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 being the daughter of Kanhaiya Lal.

5. It is said that some mutation proceedings are pending in respect of the said house at the behest of the petitioner and his brother Surendra Kumar, wherein, Bitta Devi is contesting the matter claiming her rights.

6. The name of Bitta Devi was entered in the Family Register of the family headed by Surendra Kumar with House No.487 being mentioned therein by A.D.O. Panchayat, which was objected by Surendra Kumar, brother of the petitioner, whereupon, the A.D.O. Panchayat cancelled the said entry vide his order dated 24.10.2017. Being aggrieved, Bitta Devi filed an appeal under Rule 6-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules 1970, but surprisingly enough she did not implead Surendra Kumar, instead she impleaded Mahendra Kumar, the petitioner herein. On this issue, learned counsel for Bitta Devi submitted that he was not aware as to who had filed the appeal. The interest of Mahendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar is the same, nevertheless, Surendra Kumar should have also been impleaded.

7. Be that as it may, it is this appeal of Bitta Devi which has been allowed vide order dated 7.1.2019 by the S.D.M. It is this order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate which is under challenge by the petitioner.

8. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in nutshell, is that there was no occasion for such a fraudulent entry without any application having been filed by Bitta Devi, that too, without any opportunity of hearing to the family of Surendra Kumar including the petitioner herein. The appellate authority has failed to consider the relevant aspects of the matter and has proceeded to allow the inclusion of Bitta Devi’s name? in the Family Register, by himself considering the evidence instead of remanding the matter back to the A.D.O. P