Back
MANISH KUMAR
Pancham – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manish Kumar, J.
Heard Sri. Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Sudhir Kumar Misra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3/1, 3/2, 3/2/1, 3/2/2, 3/2/3 and 3/3 and Sri. Kaushal Kishor, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 12.02.1981 passed under Section 9(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1953') by Consolidation Officer and the revisional order dated 30.12.1982 passed under Section 48 of the Act, 1982.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the predecessors of the present petitioners i.e. Petitioner No.1 and Late Bairagi father of Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 had filed objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1952 claiming co-tenancy right over Khata No.112 on the ground that the family of the petitioners and the opposite parties were Joint Hindu Family and Late Ramhit was the Karta of the family. Being the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family his name alone was recorded under the representative capacity in the revenue records.
4. It i
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property, and mere existence of a joint family does not create a presumption of joint ownership.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting property as Joint Hindu Family property, and mere assertions without evidence are insufficient to establish ownership.
Point of law : There is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that property is a joint family....
The presumption of joint family status persists until proven otherwise, with the burden of proof on the party asserting separation.
Co-tenancy claims require demonstration of ancestral ties and continuity; mere presumption of joint heritage is insufficient for property claims.
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 court established that property was self-acquired, not ancestral, and rejected claims of adverse possession and family settlement due to lack of evidence.
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
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.
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
