Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Sunita Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner argues for mutation based on unregistered will (Para 3) |
| 3. respondent counters with legality of will (Para 4) |
| 4. court considers arguments and case facts (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. review of legal principles pertaining to will and evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. decision on unregistered will affecting registered will (Para 10) |
| 7. conclusion to dismiss the petition (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 & 6, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No. 4/Gaon Sabha.
2. Brief facts of the case are that father of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 was recorded tenure holder of the plots in dispute. Mangaru Upadhyay, father of respondent Nos. 5 & 6 had no male child, he had only two daughters i.e. respondent Nos. 5 & 6 (Asha Upadhyay & Usha Upadhyay). Mangaru Upadhyayhad her wife Smt.Lalti Devi. Mangaru Upadhyay executed a registered Will-deed on 22.03.1999 in favour of her daughters i.e. respondent Nos. 5 & 6. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 were married in the li
The interpretation of Section 92 Proviso (4) of the Indian Evidence Act and the precedent set by the Apex Court regarding the admissibility of subsequent oral agreements to modify will deeds.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to the outcome of civil suits regarding property rights.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to civil suits for declaration of rights.
Decisions on land mutation proceedings must be timely, and delays in restoring claims based on previous orders undermine legitimacy and can lead to dismissal by courts.
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not decide substantive rights, thus a writ petition is not maintainable.
Mutation orders based on valid sale deeds remain effective despite ongoing civil disputes; judicial review under the U.P. Land Revenue Act is limited to clear illegality.
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
