Back
JASPREET SINGH
Ram Lakhan – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation Bahraich – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Heard Shri. Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri. R. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 02.06.1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich whereby it has allowed the revision of the private respondents and set aside the judgment passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer, as a result the objections of the private respondents were allowed.
3. During the pendency of the petition, few of parties had expired and the counsel for the petitioners has moved an application for substitution which has been allowed and the legal heirs have been brought on record. However, for the sake of convenience, the Court shall refer to the parties as they were originally impleaded at the time of filing of the petition.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition certain brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter.
5. The dispute in question relates to Khata No.111, situate in village Bhoopani, Pargana Hisampur, Tehsil Kaisarganj, District Bahraich which was recorded in the name
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing evidence for claims of co-tenancy and inheritance, ruling that the Deputy Director's findings lacked sufficient support.
The burden of proof for co-tenancy claims lies with the claimant, and reliance on inadmissible evidence can invalidate such claims.
Dismissal of prior suit for maintainability does not determine current rights, and failure to consider evidence results in perverse findings necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
The onus of proving property as ancestral lies with the claimant, requiring evidence of purchase from Joint Hindu Family funds, not merely acceptance of a family tree.
The burden of proof lies with petitioners to establish their lineage and co-tenancy rights, which they failed to do, resulting in dismissal of the petition.
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
The burden of proof for exclusive property rights lies with the claimant, and mere entries in records are insufficient to establish ownership without supporting evidence.
The court affirmed that the burden of proof for establishing a custom of marriage lies with the claimant, and the revisional authority cannot reappraise evidence unless a jurisdictional error is pres....
To establish co-tenancy rights in ancestral property, claimants must prove the unbroken identity of the holding over time, which the petitioners failed to do.
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
