Back
MANISH KUMAR
Ram Dularey Singh. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manish Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri. Hemant Kumar Paney, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, after the demise of petitioner no. 1, his legal heir /representative has been substituted by Petitioner No. 1/1, after demise of Petitioner No.3 his legal heirs have been substituted by Petitioner No.3/1 and Petitioner No.3/2 and after the demise of Petitioner No.3/1 his legal heir has been substituted by petitioner No.3/1/1. Similarly after the demise of respondent nos. 5 and 8, their legal heirs have been substituted as 5/1 to 5/3 & 8/1 to 8/2 respectively, whereas Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have died issueless.
3. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned appellate order dated 3.2.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the revisional order dated 16.01.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Gata Nos. 210, 211, 212/1, 212/2, 214, 215, 216, 248, 249, 250, 251 and 252/1 situated at Village - Pooremani, Pargan
To establish co-tenancy rights, it must be shown that property has come down intact from a common ancestor without change in identity.
To establish co-tenancy rights, claimants must prove that the ancestral holdings have remained intact and unchanged; drastic changes negate such claims.
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
Claims of co-tenancy require proof of continuous identity of property in the name of a common ancestor; failure to establish this results in dismissal.
To establish co-tenancy rights over ancestral property, the unchanged identity of the land throughout generations must be shown, which was not proven in this case.
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 burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish joint ownership of property, which requires evidence of unbroken continuity of joint possession throughout generations, as mere assertions are ....
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 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.
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
